Talk:2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

April 7

Is the April 7 quake a "second quake" or an aftershock (7.1/7.4)? The article currently calls it a second quake, but there have been many 6.x aftershocks already. And two other 7.x aftershocks... 65.93.12.101 (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to make it consistent, in the "aftershocks" section. This is the 3rd weakest aftershock, thus I don't think it should be elaborated much in the lead. Materialscientist (talk) 07:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

The OP is correct. The caption of the image must be a mistake. The town of Wakuya/涌谷町 is far away from the sea shore. See the map. The name of the city is needed. Oda Mari (talk) 06:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
That makes perfect sense, but I don't think we have the name of the city, as the US Navy labeled the photo with Wakuya. Goodvac (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
According to tweets by CNFJ (in Japanese) [1][2][3], it is one of pictures taken during the mission to deliver aid to Wakuya but not of Wakuya. There is no info where they were actually taken. --Kusunose 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I think what happened is that the US Navy photographer was on the mission to Wakuya, and snapped that photo as his/her helicopter passed over the coast. Not knowing what town was below, he/she just labeled the location "Wakuya". Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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

I pinpointed the place. It's an image of Tarō district in Miyako, Iwate. See these images. [4], [5], and [6]. Oda Mari (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Om the same note, does anyone know where this one was shot? File:US Navy 110315-N-5503T-307 An aerial view of damage to Wakuya, Japan after a 9.0 magnitude earthquake and subsequent tsunami devastated the area in.jpg It was shot by the same person about two hours earlier, could it be Taro too? Like the previous one the filename says Wakuya, but the caption says Otsuchi so I used it in the Ōtsuchi, Iwate article only for a former resident of Otsuchi to remove it saying it wasn't there. I think it and an adjacent shot bear a resemblence to a Landsat image of Miyako but I'm not sure. The second shot includes an iconic image of a ferry balanced on a house which has been in several news articles, but none of the ones I saw named the town, it would be nice to know where it is to add it to the relevant town's article. Samatarou (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

April 11 Aftershock

Another aftershock (7.1?) (7.4) and tsunami warning just reported on TV in Sydney, Australia, on A Current Affair on TCN 9. - 220.101 talk\Contribs 08:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Upggraded to 7.4 @ 09:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

USGS downgraded to a 6.6, but I don't see how this is relevant to the article. StrPby (talk) 09:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Images for the section Elsewhere_across_the_Pacific

I added this image to the section Elsewhere_across_the_Pacific. This section specifically talks about broken docks, and the image demonstrates broken docks. I am not sure why it was removed.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems to be back again now, but from my POV I wouldn't have known it was a broken dock except for the caption, to me it just looks like the boat is moored to a pontoon, so perhaps that is why it was removed - the tsunami damage is not at all obvious unless you know what the place originally looked like. Samatarou (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. First of all you could see it is broken. Second of all think how the owner should have got to his boat. the dock is in a middle of the water, it is attached to nowhere.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Mbz1 - no slight to you and your great image work, but, images are supposed to show what the words can't fully describe. When we have to read the caption and magnify and carefully look through the image to locate what it meant to show, perhaps it is better to skip it - the article is slow to load anyway and is not in a desperate need for images. Besides, the effect on the Americas is so much dwarfed by the damage in Japan that it by no means should be overaccentuated in this article. Materialscientist (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
As I said, look at the dock even in the thumb. How you believe the owner got to his boat? Was he flying or was he swimming? It is attached to nowhere. Anyway.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Such scene was rather common near the place where I lived (well, without that short piece of pier). I suppose, in shallow waters and where tides are an issue it is easier to put a pole somewhat away from the shore and bind a boat to it than build a proper pier. People walked to the boat or used a small flat-bottom boat to get there. Materialscientist (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

image usage in the "Aftermath" subpage

hi I am posting this here because there are zero topics on the Aftermath talk page. The issue we have an editor who seems interested in removing images of Japanese civilians working with US teams, in the International Response section, and keeps adding an closeup image of US navy personnel only. The best I can tell is the problem being that too many images are from the US marines in the editors opinion, and they want more from the US navy. So I have used a new image USN sourced image (again of civilians and sailors combined) I hope this is enough but I would appreciate other editors keeping an eye on the subpage until this gets sorted out. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

"The Man Who Predicted the Tsunami"

I'm not quite sure where to put this, and haven't been active in the article, so will leave that decision to those editors.

It's a real pity he wasn't able to get this work more widely accepted in time. Would have saved a lot of lives. --Pete Tillman (talk) 00:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I am rather skeptical on this: the above article doesn't elaborate, and I've heard at least several other claims that even the exact date and even strength were predicted by various scientists around the globe. That "the big one" was expected is no news at all. Materialscientist (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there was any doubt about his research. Based on similar studies, we can expect a similar tsunami on the Oregon coast in the not too far distant future. Information here: http://books.google.com/books?id=6lvl6i7r2CcC&pg=PA56&sig=bGb5x0_4o2iiCw4DGPzw4GahYiY&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false Gandydancer (talk) 04:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
See the 869 Sanriku earthquake and tsunami, the events of a month ago were not unexpected based on evidence of past tsunamis but 'prediction' is the wrong word, and it was more than just one seismologist. Mikenorton (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • From what I've seen thus far, all these so call predictions/predictors are nothing more predictable or verifiable than your average (and friendly) neighbourhood postman. Please leave them at the doorstep and carry on watching your regular scheduled TV programming, thank you. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 11:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Long range prediction is a well-known science. Here's the prediction for the Oregon coast:
Recent findings conclude that the Cascadia Subduction zone is more complex and volatile than previously believed. Geologists predict a 37 percent chance of a M8.2+ event in the next 50 years, and a 10 to 15 percent chance that the entire Cascadia Subduction will rupture with a M9+ event within the same time frame.[6] Geologists have also determined the Pacific Northwest is not prepared for such a colossal quake. The tsunami produced could reach heights of 80 to 100 feet (24 to 30 m).[7] Gandydancer (talk) 13:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
  • The takeaway quote is:
During the magnitude 9.0 quake on March 11, some people well inland, thinking themselves safe, took time to change clothes or to make phone calls. Others watched the disaster unfold instead of running to high ground. They proved what Dr. Shishikura's group wrote last year about local tsunamis: "It appears to be almost completely unknown among the general public that in the past great tsunamis have inundated areas as far as 3-4 kilometers inland as the result of earthquakes exceeding magnitude 8."

Had Dr. Shishikura's group made a better public case, people might not have stood & gawked, instead of running for their lives. A variant of the problem of people walking out during an unusual "low tide".... Seems worth a mention to me. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. This seems to me more of a case of journalists looking for something, anything to write about to keep the disaster news flowing. And as for the scientist in question, how can he say that everyone refused to listen to him when he was talking about a well-known science? Read the two references I gave and the Sanriku article that Mikenorten mentioned. This statement: "It appears to be almost completely unknown among the general public that in the past great tsunamis have inundated areas as far as 3-4 kilometers inland as the result of earthquakes exceeding 8 magnitude." - actually the Sanriku tsunami is known to have gone 4 kilometers inland, so no new information there. Gandydancer (talk) 18:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, pretty obviously, the word didn't get out to the folks who sttood there gawking. If nothing else, a failure of public education. Best, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

WP should not deal with "I told ya so" scenarios. The same thing has been said about nearly every disaster. This guy didn't predict anything either. He just said that earthquakes & tsunami like this occur periodically. That is not a prediction. (If he had predicted it, he should be ashamed to admit it after not telling anyone what time it was coming.)Dcs002 (talk) 09:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Image in Casualties section - satellite photo of Sendai

I'm having a problem seeing the damage in this image that the caption suggests. Is it just me? I think a satellite photo is a good idea, but a clearer one would be more illustrative. Dcs002 (talk) 09:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

124 foot tsunami?

This extremity is probably due to focusing effects of the bays in the area. The overall wave was nowhere near this height. Unless some buoy reports can confirm this height, it is better left out as an extremity since this is an exception to most of the areas affected. The overall height of the wave should be stated as an average, not as an extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.38.104 (talk) 02:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Also, all refs on those 30+ meter waves are news reports, based on indirect estimates. Materialscientist (talk) 03:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a bit of a moot point that average wave height is 3m if the wave on your coastline is 30m. I heard a comment yesterday which talked about wreckage now residing on top of cliffs overlooking towns. This is presumably evidence of height reached. I saw a news clip showing a boat on top of a building, again presumably implying it had been underwater. Sandpiper (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

These wave heights are cited. It's all good. I think reporting the range of wave heights is important, especially as the Japanese record was broken. And they were reported to the nearest .1 m by scientific observers. Indirect or not, they're reporting with some precision.Dcs002 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

«The highest point of the Tsunami on land was 37.8 m above the sea level at Taro District, Miyako City, Miyagi Prefecture, according to the survey of University of Tokyo.». The source is a scientific report: http://www.isprs-sc.org/material/Lessons_from_the_Disaster_of_East_Japan_Great_Earthquake_and_Tsunami_Text.pdf Could somebody add the reference? Pedrojpinto (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

A Map kit for Japan

Hello, we've worked on a Japan map kit, with multiple layers related to the disaster, that people can download free, remix etc.

http://aqworks.com/en/blog/2011/04/26/japan-earthquake-tsunami-map-kit/

Reasons for making this kit:

  • Map some of the basic data points around the disaster and bring a better understanding of the scale of the event.
  • Provide visual assets to citizen journalists and bloggers to supplement their coverage.
  • Help independent designers around the world build new data visualizations around the disaster to spread understanding and support for the rebuilding phase.

Am wondering where this could fit in the article. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.77.232.111 (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

translation request

hello this is a fantastic map but the location names need to be translated if anyone can do this please help. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Ishikari New Port(石狩新港), Tomakomai East Port(苫小牧東港), Nemuro Hanasaki(根室 花咲), Hamanaka Kiritappu(浜中町 霧多布), Tokachi Port(十勝港), Erimo Shoya(えりも 庶野), Hakodate (函館)
  • Mutsu Sekinehama(むつ 関根浜), Hachinohe(八戸), Miyako(宮古), Kamaishi(釜石), Ōfunato(大船渡), Ishinomaki Ayukawa(石巻 鮎川), Sōma (相馬), Onahama (小名浜),
  • Ōarai (大洗), Chōshi(銚子), Tokyo Harumi(東京 晴海), Hachijōjima Yaene(八丈島 八重根), Miyakejima Tsubota(三宅島 坪田), Chichijima Futami(父島 二見), Kōzushima(神津島), Chiba(千葉), Yokohama(横浜), Yokosuka(横須賀), Odawara(小田原), Tateyama Mera(館山 布良), Numazu Uchiura(沼津 内浦), Shimizu(清水), Omaezaki(御前崎), Tahara Akabane(田原 赤羽根), Nagoya(名古屋), Sakata(酒田), Niigata(新潟), Kanazawa(金沢), Tsuruga(敦賀)
  • Toba(鳥羽), Owase(尾鷲), Kushimoto Fukuro Port(串本 袋港), Osaka(大阪)
  • Komatsushima(小松島), Suzaki Port(須崎港)
  • Sakaiminato(境港), Kure(呉)
  • Ōita(大分), Fukuoka Hakata (福岡 博多), Nagasaki(長崎), Miyazaki Port(宮崎港), Tanegashima Kumano(種子島 熊野), Amami Kominato(奄美 小湊), Naha(那覇)

I think that's all. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I made English version of this map. Please use it.File:2011 Tohoku earthquake observed tsunami heights en.png --59.157.57.13 (talk) 14:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC) (Eastwind41 in Wikimedia Commons)

Vandalism in the current version

It seems wrong to me but i am unsure. The word/place FUCKUSHIMA might be a mis-spelling of fukushima. someone who knows for sure can change it if it is wrong.

The offending section is as follows.

It was reported that radioactive iodine was detected in the tap water in Fuckushima, Toshigi, Gunma, Tokyo, Chiba, Saitama, and Niigata, and radioactive cesium in the tap water in Fuckushima, Tochigi and Gunma.[186][187][188]

Thanks for pointing this out. It may have been vandalism, or an honest mistake, but either way, I've corrected it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is somewhat chaotic because many facts, such as maximum tsunami height, death tolls, etc, are reiterated several times, many of which are contradictory. There are also many unresolved(constantly changing) figures, such as confirmed deaths and missing people, that don't even cite the date and time at which the information was known to be accurate(entirely failing the fifth criterion to be stable for good articles). I suggest that everyone refrain from adding/changing any more information of this nature until the numbers have been confirmed and static. Once the entirety of the information about the immediate effects of this disaster have been collected and confirmed, and additions to this article haved slowed, it should be rewritten to remove contradictory, inaccurate, incomplete, and redundant information. Catvontrap (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we will eventually need to come to some conclusions, but I don't see how it would help to refrain from adding/changing information as we go along. Gandydancer (talk) 22:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
There is latest infomation by Japan Meteorological Agency : http://www.jma.go.jp/jma/en/2011_Earthquake.html We can get observed tsunami height and others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.198.79.2 (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
An inconsistency: The shift in the earth's axis is reported as "10cm (4in.)" in the opening paragraph but as "25cm (9.8in)" in the chapter "Geophysical impacts". One is probably wrong. Meauzart (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

formatting question

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 5 is located in Japan
2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami/Archive 5
Tokyo
Tokyo
Sendai
Sendai
class=notpageimage|
Map showing the epicenter of the earthquake

Hello folks, as you can see once I pulled this map out of the infobox, I can't seem to get it to make thumbnail or right-orient... can anyone help my with the proper markup so we can put it back in the inline text sections and make sure the text still wraps, which as you can see is not now the case 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to put this in the Geology section if anyone just wants to make the edit themselves —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.220.113.98 (talk) 20:22, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I've changed "float=none" to "float=right" in the first line of your post. Is that closer to what you want? -- John of Reading (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Fukushima explosion.jpg

File:Fukushima explosion.jpg has been nominated for deletion. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I cropped it.Wipsenade (talk) 15:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Earth axis shift

In the lede, it says shifted the Earth on its axis by 10 cm (4 in)

However, in "Geophysical impacts" it says, The earthquake shifted the Earth's axis by 25 cm (9.8 in).

The sources vary - 10cm [7], 25cm [8], 17cm [9] [10].

Which one is correct?  Chzz  ►  12:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that the one with the strongest backing is the 17 cm supported by this ref from NASA. There may never be an agreed figure, like the magnitude and rupture area of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for both of which there is a range of estimates. Mikenorton (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Earthquake_tilting_Earth_axis  Chzz  ►  22:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Probably best to wait for the first papers to be published on the earthquake. Mikenorton (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
But until then, should we just remove it? Or maybe say "sources disagree" or something?  Chzz  ►  02:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Or just quote a range with cites. Mikenorton (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wave arrival time at Fuushima power station

Anyone know a definitive source for when the tsunami arrived at Fukushima power station? This might not be the same as the published time when the generators stopped there because of the flooding. Sandpiper (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There are but then it's original research. WP seems to prefer mass media sources to well documented primary research reports. So it appears the IAEA report or the NRC testimony would be less welcome then an article in Parade Magazine. --Patbahn (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There's something slightly wrong about the "Tohoku" in the title...

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. There seems to be a consensus that we haven't got a consensus. - GTBacchus(talk) 13:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami → Great East Japan Earthquake – Relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC) Is there a reason this is not at "2011 Great East Japan Earthquake"? We know this took place near Sendai, but shouldn't we use official naming practises? -- 92.4.102.225 (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

East Earthquake is the term google translates the ja.wp page into, when I go over there to steal pictures. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 01:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Great East Japan Earthquake does redirect here. However, as the 1995 Kobe earthquake redirects to Great Hanshin Earthquake, we have a conflict in consistency over how to treat this. I'm of the opinion this needs to be at Great East Japan Earthquake and subsequent tsunami or similar. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I concur. Great East Japan Earthquake is now the official name, and we have a number of Japanese articles using it. "Tohoku" doesn't include Hokkaido and Kanto.--Shinkansen Fan (talk) 13:31, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
also writing "Tōhoku" requires use of a special character which makes creating WLs, categories, etc is kind of a pain if you tend to write them and not c&p them. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose There have been numerous Japanese earthquakes that could be referred to as great. Beyond that, no English media outside of Japan are referring to the earthquake as the Great East Japan Earthquake.[11] March 11 earthquake receives more aggregate news hits, so I see greater value in employing a date context in the title.[12]--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • Support. This is not Google, CNN, or the New York Times. Just because the English media outside of Japan widely use inaccurate names doesn't mean we should do the same here, considering that the impact on the Kanto region was enormous. I don't think there's ambiguity here because informed people don't confuse this with any other great earthquake in Japan. This is a major disaster causing many significant changes in the country. The impact on West Japan was considerably smaller and many businesses are shifting operations to the west to aid rebuilding efforts in the east. I think there's a good enough reason to include East Japan in the title. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Something along the lines of 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami would be fine by me. My argument was that a date context is necessary and employing great is inappropriate.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
        • Support---agree with 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami for those reasons as well as what I stated below. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 02:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose That's not the English name, it's not commonly used in English. WP:USEENGLISH; Further it doesn't indicate the tsunami. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
    • "Tōhoku earthquake" is not the English name either, nor is it commonly used in English. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 04:01, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
      • Just because the current title is inappropriate does not mean we should rename it to something else that is also inappropriate. Choose the English name. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 04:47, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose We're not concerned here about 'official' names, rather as to how the event is referred to in english language sources. I would suggest instead a move to 2011 Tōhoku-Kanto earthquake and tsunami as this seems to be at least as commonly used a name as any other and addresses the issue of the effects in the Kanto region. Mikenorton (talk) 09:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
well shouldn't it then be "2011 Tōhoku-Kanto-Hokkaido earthquake and tsunami" or something? You can see how ridiculous it becomes to put a laundry list of affected areas right in the title- thats the beauty of using East earthquake and tsunami, its simpler and manages to summarize the whole better. Yes it affected the Kanto region but no one is calling it the Kanto earthquake right? I don't care if we say Great or we say 2011, but this is clearly a trans regional event and i really think we should defer to our ja.wp colleagues who have already decided on East instead of tohoku or sendai or tohoku-kanto... 66.220.113.98 (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
The search string '"tohoku-kanto earthquake" -wikipedia' produces 533,000 hits on google (although '"tohoku earthquake" -wikipedia' produces 1,700,000 hits an argument for leaving it as it is, compare '"great east japan earthquake" -wikipedia', 538,000 hits) and you should read WP:COMMONNAME. Mikenorton (talk) 06:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
putting wikipedia in the search string is only going to reinforce the naming practices we are already using. "Sendai earthquake" -wikipedia gives about 1.3 million hits but it doesn't mean we should go back to using that (although in my personal life its probably how I have seen it referred to the most because it was the original usage). In fact while your numbers are accurate for "Great East Japan earthquake" if you remove the Great and just search for "East Japan earthquake" -wikipedia, as several editors seem to support above, you get over 2 million hits. I will grant you those numbers benefit a little from that search string being more general, but as far as google searches go I think its also reasonable to think we could follow the Japanese naming conventions. Certainly as the time from this disaster increases the percentage of international editors will drop and the percentage of japanese editing and references will go up, so the likelihood is in the long run the page will start following ja.wp naming conventions anyways. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To spell it out I searched using the string ( "tohoku-kanto earthquake" -wikipedia ) in order to remove all hits that contain the word wikipedia, as suggested in the relevant section of WP:COMMONNAME, thus ensuring that the effect you describe wouldn't happen. The search that you did on "East Japan earthquake" -wikipedia does indeed make it a strong candidate for the naming, so perhaps '2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami' is the compromise here. Mikenorton (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Neutral. Yes, "Great East Japan Earthquake" is a formal name for this disaster, but Tohoku was the primary region where the disaster took place. -- 92.4.69.82 (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Several titles being mentioned, it's not obvious who opposes / supports which one. But I think it's becoming clear which points we should discuss. I write them down and add my opinions. (I am a Japanese native and have been in Japan since before the earthquake.) For now "Great East Japan Earthquake" sounds simple and best to me. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support. "Tōhoku" is not a very well known of the country, or at least it wasn't until this earthquake. "Great East Japan Earthquake" makes more sense, since it describes the entire geographical area that the quake and tsunami occurred in. (Plus, "Tōhoku" has a diacritic, and diacritics in article names are often discouraged by WP:DIACRITICS.) -- 92.4.108.229 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. If Kobe's quake can be at "Great Hanshin", this can be at "Great East Japan". -- 92.4.70.0 (talk) 07:30, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to "Great East Japan Earthquake". Tohoku is only one part of the East Japan region. What's more, a 9-on-the-Richter-scale magnitude and nearly 20,000 deaths in my opinion is worth the move. -- 92.4.104.137 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Modifications

--Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you the original proposer? In the section after this one, you complain about someone who is not the original proposer suggesting a different title. This seems to apply to yourself as well. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • With "tsunami" or without
Without: Most people who may think of "tsunami" can think of "earthquake." (So, it's not very unkind even if "tsunami" is omitted in the title.) The tsunami is a result of the earthquake. If a heavy rain causes about 500 causalities each of floods and of landslides, do you agree to have a title like "... Downpour, floods and landslides"? I suppose the number of the causalities (and the missing) does not justify indicating one aspect in the title. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
That makes no sense. The major action and disaster is a result of the tsunami, so just as with downpours that cause floods, the name of the article is "flood", so by your example, this article should be called "tsunami". 65.95.13.213 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
The tsunami was caused by the earthquake not the other way round, so the deaths and other consequences were caused by the earthquake. treesmill (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
also I thought I heard that over 90% of the deaths were confirmed drownings. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Names like "blah blah blah earthquake and tsunami" are pure Wikipedia inventions that utterly go against its own WP:OR guideline. No news media use names like those (How can a name be ever more awkward?). The various names used by English-language media show that there is no commonly-agreed-on name for the disaster. Why not just let go and follow something official? This is primarily a Japanese issue and they have a concise and explanatory name for it: [東日本大震災] Error: {{Lang}}: unrecognized language code: jp (help). The Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Japan has also given it an English name just as good: "Great East Japan Earthquake". Use it and let this issue die. Kxx (talk | contribs) 01:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No one outside of Japan is widely using Great East Japan Earthquake, so the opinion for the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Japan is entirely irrelevant.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
I see no logic in arguing whether a name is widely used when there is not a single widely-used one to begin with. Media use generic names and change from report to report. How bad/hard is it to just follow a government agency? Or is it that whatever name will be unacceptable unless it contains Wikipedia invention? Kxx (talk | contribs) 19:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
If you search on google with the string " "east japan earthquake" -great -wikipedia " to exclude results both affected by wikipedia and results including 'great' you get 3.15 million hits. I think that that counts as 'widely used'. Mikenorton (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
But then you have to actually look at the search results. How many of them merely contain the search term as a generic name or part of things like "North-east Japan Earthquake" and "Middle East, Japan earthquakes"? How many of them are pages from blogs, forums and random websites that by no means meet WP:RS? Meanwhile, if you put "great" inside the quotes, a bunch of pages ending in ".go.jp" show up in the first page. With search engines doing way more than simple string matching, things like the Google test and Bing test is of hardly any value now. Kxx (talk | contribs) 22:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
so it appears you both support the replacement of a regional reference (such as Sendai or Tohoku or Tohoku-Kanto etc etc) and using the term East Japan? This has been another strong point of contention- so consensus on this issue when you seem so far apart elsewhere is a good sign.
Basically your debate is over the use of the word Great- objections to such a term center around its clear POV implications in most usages, however it is entirely understandable to establish a separate naming convention when identifying events of such a massive scale and giving them due profile. I think also we should remember that what might be "great" for the Japanese might not be "great" for english speakers, and just because it is official or commonly used in Japan does not make it automatically appropriate for use on en.wp, although it is a reasonable argument. I am inclined to remove all vestiges of POV whenever possible and so support 2011 instead of Great, however my concern is that this understates the historical impact of the event. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "2011" / "Great" / another or without
"Great" --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
2011-- 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • "East Japan" / "Tōhoku" / another
"East Japan" --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
East Japan-- 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 2011 Japan Earthquake
In my view most people will think of this as the 2011 Japan Earthquake and would search for it in those terms or something very similar. Unless another equally significant earthquake happens in Japan this year that is unambiguous. No need for 'Great' or 'East' let alone Tōhoku. The vast majority of the world have no idea where Tōhoku is, even after this event. Except from a rather local point of view the region in which this happened is Japan. '2011 Japan Earthquake' is sufficient and anything longer is superfluous. treesmill (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
I support this name as it avoids potential POV and OR issues. Also, wikipedia strives for the simplest name possible. If some organization (such as USGS or Japan's version of such), or later research paper, has a different name for it, when can use that name when the time comes. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

alternate proposal: 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami

I think there is enough support for the alternate title of 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami that it warrants discussion. I personally don't see a move as necessary, but if its to be made this is a better title.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:57, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dear Labattblueboy, the title in your proposal is widely different from that in the first proposal here: "Great East Japan Earthquake." You are not the original proposer; please refrain from making another proposal unless you do think this article should be renamed so. --Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Three separate users have indicated support for such a name. The rename box has been opened and thus far there has been more support shown for 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami than Great East Japan Earthquake.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
As if three users were representative at all. Kxx (talk | contribs) 18:53, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
as you can see this discussion has been pretty free-form and incomprehensible so far, imho three editors consensus is a pretty good start all things considered. I will restate my opinion that this is the correct proposal, because it does not favor any region(s) and doesn't use the possibly pov "great"- I will also add support to the idea mentioned above, that because the english language media has been using so many different terms interchangeably, the idea of trying to isolate the most common version used in english now, will not be effective. Essentially this page will always require so many redirects, that we might as well just choose the best summary style title and live with it. Also agreed that with the Japanese official and ja.wp titles being so close to what a basic and descriptive english title would be- 2011 East Japan Earthquake and Tsunami is the best usage. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps we should all look at WP:COMMONNAME. The statement 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami brings up 75K hits. The statement Great East Japan Earthquake brings up 131k hits. The statement 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami brings up 3.7k hits. The statement 2011 Japan Earthquake brings up 648k hits. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
    • The data in this search is slightly dysfunctional because it takes in all hits, not simply reliable sources (see WP:GOOGLEHITS), and includes those that were ranked with that search term but do not actually contain the term. Just by giving a cursory look at the first couple pages of hits associated with a couple of the terms I find few sources that would be considered reliable. Without delving into the depths of the analysis I would have to estimate that at least 60% of the his associated with 2011 Japan Earthquake appear to actually relate to 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami-. 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami would be an acceptable alternative to my proposal above, but I don't think I can support 2011 Japan Earthquake -Labattblueboy (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Using the term above 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami brings up 374k hits. The data, as stated above, is raw, admittedly; but without in depth analysis any guestimation is just that. Either way, their appears to be a case for 2011 Japan earthquake minus tsunami, and with tsunami. I would support either. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Support, but... We really need to include tsunami in the title. Most of the effects and damage have been tsunami related, separate from the fact that the Fukushima problems were also mostly tsunami-caused. Either way, the longer I see Tohoku as the title, the more it seems outmoded to me. 66.220.113.98 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ready to close

Hi. I'm here from Requested Moves, and I'd like to close out this request, as it seems that the discussion has largely run its course, and this request has been in our backlog forever. It's a bit tricky to read a consensus from this discussion, though, as there are a lot of variables under consideration:

  1. "Great" or not?
  2. Include "2011", or not?
  3. "Japan" or "East Japan"?
  4. "earthquake and tsunami", or just "earthquake"?

I think those are the questions, and I wonder if people could summarize how they feel about each. Then we should be able to finally put this thing to bed. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Close it as no consensus, there's clearly none. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I feel that it should always include tsunami, since that is the name the world at large uses to refer to the major impact of this disaster. Outside of Japan, people still refer to the tsunami aftermath, and the nuclear aftermath, and Japan is not an English speaking region; even in Japan, they are talking about the tsunami aftermath. It needs 2011, since there are other large earthquakes and tsunamis which have affected large areas of Japan. "East Japan" would more closely match the current article name (which is "East North"). 65.94.47.63 (talk) 11:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I was beginning to believe that 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami was coming out as a middle ground of discussion, but I have to agree that the discussion has all but ended and so a close by no consensus may be best.--Labattblueboy (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that no consensus is about right. I note that the first set of scientific papers has just come out in Science [13], where the name used is '2011 Tohoku-Oki Earthquake', which is not even on our list of possibles. Mikenorton (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notable deaths

I wonder why no notable victims are mentioned. Do any sources exist that we could use to add this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.49.232.208 (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Unused images

  • Mechanism
    Mechanism
  • Deaths and missing people by prefecture
    Deaths and missing people by prefecture

These Japanese maps may be helpful. --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 07:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Iceberg formation

In the news, and reported in a scientific paper, this event, a calving of a manhattan sized iceberg from the Sulzberger Ice Shelf, should probably be mentioned. i added it to the bay/shelf article, but thats an easy edit. i have not edited this article, as im not familiar yet with standards for adding events like this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

How will Japan prepare themselves for another earthquake? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.84.12.38 (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"[...] and tsunami"??

As soon as I tipped up on this article, and saw the title I thought OMG. And lo and behold there is a page of discussion already. After reading the posts, it clear that most of the reason simply violate WP:IDL. I don't like it because it not official, or it's not what most people call it. All products of WP:RECENT. It is terrible that so many people died from such a horrible event, but do a little research, and it's a sad fact but this has happened many times to Japan and WILL continue to happen as long as the country sits over a subduction zone!!!

I make my point by noting these titles have absolutely no mention of the word tsunami in the title. BUT they had major tsunamis:

All of these earthquakes and geological events are notable because they had major tsunami, but why is there no "and tsunami" in the title, because they all happened long ago (when there was no TV). Same thing with the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami because people have seen it?!

I would not be writing all this but it really galls me that this article's title is a clearer-than-clear example of why there is no attempt to maintain any sort of convention (sic guidelines) on this site. Every article even those in the same subject group are written according to what the editing majority wants not the majority of article's demands. Consensus is just a word that glosses over the cracks.

So "[..] and tsunami" is added because it became notable because when many people saw it, right? Whereas other article titles concerning major geological events that result in a tsunami, don't need it because not enough people care i.e. lack of interest. This article name is such a flagrant example of recentism and popularism it beggars belief.

In keeping with history and the precedences set throughout at List of historic tsunamis (not a single title uses "[..] and tsunami"), the title of this article should simply be: 2011 Tōhoku earthquake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.72.55 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami was moved to that title from the original 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake after a rather short debate that did not appear to produce a clear consensus (in my view anyway). The problem is that most sources refer to the tsunami without the earthquake while a smaller number refer to the earthquake without the tsunami, but almost none use both. I created the article 869 Sanriku earthquake and tsunami because the main evidence for the earthquake is actually the tsunami deposits, but I wouldn't object to removing the tsunami bit of the title. You're right to bring up the case of the 1896 Meiji-Sanriku earthquake as the earthquake itself caused no damage at all, whereas the tsunami did all the damage. My main argument for not including 'tsunami' in the title is that earthquakes typically cause damage and deaths from a variety of causes, not just from shaking e.g. landslides, failure of short-lived landslide dammed lakes, fires, but we don't want titles like 20xx somewhere earthquake, landslides, fires and tsunami. A possible solution for the 2004 Indian Ocean and 2011 Tohoku articles is to create separate articles just on the tsunamis and leave the main article named as just the earthquakes. Mikenorton (talk) 11:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
I think "...and tsunami" is quite appropriate in this case (and the Indian Ocean case), since almost all of the consequences and notability came from the tsunami and not directly from the earthquake which caused it. Without the tsunami this article would probably have been of little interest to anyone other than a geologist since Japan's cities and population came through the massive quake itself almost unscathed. As for the naming of ancient quake articles, well that's a judgement call for people interested in contributing to those articles. Samatarou (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tohoku not Tōhoku

According to the United States Geological Survey and the English language website of the Japanese CCEP its 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku or 2011 Tohoku earthquake. Thus "Tohoku" not "Tōhoku". This is the English language Wikipedia, and the page title should therefore be changed. However, I'm not able to do that. Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This is an issue for the naming of articles dealing with Japan in general but in this case, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Japan-related_articles#Determining common usage, as the macron is not generally used in english language sources, then we should leave it out. If we're discussing the title again, I would note that the name "2011 Tohoku-Oki earthquake" seems to be gaining ground, virtually all the scientific papers written so far use this name. I think that this may be an attempt to use something less cumbersome than "2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tohoku", while still carrying its meaning, although I can't find a source that supports that interpretation - I'm assuming here that 'Oki' is the romaji version of a Japanese word that means 'in the ocean' or something similar. Mikenorton (talk) 12:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
That interpretation is confirmed by these ja to en dictionary pages for "oki". [14], [15], and [16] (thanks to User:Oda Mari for the links). Mikenorton (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree the article title would be better without the macron, many people can't type such letters which makes them hard to enter into a search box etc, and the presence of a macron will change the sort order for some people, e.g. I have a Pocket PC port of wikipedia which sorts "Tō" (etc) after "Tz" in its article index which makes an article hard to locate if you don't know in advance that it uses an accented character. Samatarou (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Being relatively new to this situation, at what point does an article get locked for editing due to constant vandalism? I have no experience with this sort of thing. Thanks all. Prburley —Preceding undated comment added 13:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC).

type of cause

very severe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.36.8 (talk) 14:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

National Geographic resource

See Ocean gyre 97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding "Great" to title

USGS is now referring to this earthquake as the "Great Tohoku Earthquake". This title likely reflects the judgment of the USGS regarding the long term historical significance of this earthquake, now that a full analysis has been completed of the earthquake and its effects. I suggest following this naming convention, not least because the British Geological Survey and the NOAA also use "Great". If you look at the List_of_earthquakes_in_Japan, the 1923 and 1995 earthquakes are also titled "Great".--Brian Dell (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Soft Wording

The following sentences use soft language that suggest they are apocryphal or unverified, however there are many verified sources. "The tsunami is reported to have caused several deaths outside of Japan... A man who is said to have been attempting to photograph the oncoming tsunami at the mouth of the Klamath River, south of Crescent City, California, was swept out to sea." "reported to have" "said to have" Isn't wikipedia entirely reliant on other sources, every sentence of every article could read "reported to" or "said to" but articles are instead formatted matter-of-fact based on supported information. There is no doubt or controversy so shouldn't this read "the tsunami caused several deaths...a man who was attempting to photograph...? Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


Analysis of Preparedness and Response

I think this article could benefit from some information and analysis on what went right and what went wrong with the Japanese preparedness and response to the earthquake/tsunami. Did the Japanese over-prepare for earthquake and under-prepare for tsunami? What could have been done in the preparedness and response to reduce the death toll? Are remedial actions being implemented? Is appears likely that over 95% of the deaths were due to tsunami, not earthquake. How could the preparedness and response have been different to reduce the death toll? --Westwind273 (talk) 23:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Converting Missing to Dead?

Just reading a report that about 90% of the 3,000-odd missing have been declared dead. Apparently a lot of the families were ready to wrap up the status for the first anniversary of the disaster. What is the policy for Wikipedia in handling these sorts of statistics? My own feeling is that at this point in time all of the missing should be classified as dead. There's essentially no chance that any of them will turn up alive, and if there were any weird cases like amnesiacs in hospitals, they would have been identified by now, with DNA analysis if nothing else. The Japanese actually identified quite a lot of the remains by using DNA. Shanen (talk) 09:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

"Collapsed" buildings

To me, the following is quite misleading:

"On 12 March 2012, a Japanese National Police Agency report confirmed 15,854 deaths,[24] 26,992 injured,[25] and 3,155 people missing[26] across twenty prefectures, as well as 129,225 buildings totally collapsed, with a further 254,204 buildings 'half collapsed', and another 691,766 buildings partially damaged"

The use of "collapsed" is likely to be read by many as applying to buildings that fell down as a result of the earthquake. The source for the information is the Police Agency report, but the English used in that report is clearly not perfect (see the use of "door" which must look odd to most people: it is basically a mistranslation of the Japanese counter word for houses). I think that in fact something like "destroyed" would be the appropriate term for what they call "totally collapsed", and "seriously damaged" for "half collapsed".

This 129,225 figure is almost certainly a total that includes the buildings destroyed in the tsunami, as well as those that may have fallen down in the earthquake. As the page makes clear later on, it was the tsunami that caused most of the damage seen in the pictures of destroyed towns. I would argue that a building destroyed in this manner hasn't necessarily collapsed; as we all saw, houses were practically cut from their foundations and swept away, eventually being crushed to pieces as they went. Other buildings burned to the ground - whole neighbourhoods were destroyed this way, and I expect these are also included in that Police Agency figure under the "collapsed" category.

I have never seen a figure for the number of buildings that collapsed only as a result of the earthquake - perhaps nothing is available because in the areas affected by tsunami it would be impossible to separate these from the tsunami-destroyed structures? However, if you look at tsunami footage for any town of your choosing, you see very little - or no - evidence of heavy damage before the water arrives. Compare it against footage of Kobe in 1995, where damage is definitely visible.

Anyway I believe it's important not to give the wrong impression of the earthquake structural damage. I hope this makes sense and I'm not just being too pedantic about the word "collapsed". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.110.141.191 (talk) 12:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I think you make a valid point, with the problem arising from mis/translations. Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentence added as fact without citation

This sentence is not factual: "Many electrical generators were taken down, and at least three nuclear reactors suffered explosions due to hydrogen gas that had built up within their outer containment buildings after cooling system failure." Citation? ..."three nuclear reactors suffered explosions due to hydrogen gas that had built up within their outer containment buildings" Some say it was MOX pool fuels in one reactor and containment rod cooling pools that blew up in another building. Some say it was the reactor core. Which is it? This is stated as fact with no "proof" or citation.

"Many electrical generators were taken down". Again, this is speculative but stated as fact. All systems and back-up systems failed. To use the phrase "taken down" is not clear, nor accurate. Taken down by what?

Thanks! Susan Mason174.61.228.76 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, Susan. For the WP tag for these items requiring citations see Template:Citation needed. e.g. Regards, Peter.[citation needed] Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

meta analysis

There is a nice meta-analysis of this article here: http://tp1024.wordpress.com/2013/01/06/hiding-the-death-and-devastaion/#more-259

Which makes some interesting points which the maintainers of this article might like to reflect on — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.252.22 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Conjested opening sentence needs rework and rewording.

Here is the sentence ....

The 2011 earthquake off the Pacific coast of Tōhoku (東北地方太平洋沖地震, Tōhoku-chihō Taiheiyō Oki Jishin), or as it's sometimes called in Japan, (東日本大震災, Higashi nihon daishin-sai)[1] also known as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake,[2] the Great East Japan Earthquake,[3][4][fn 1] and the 3.11 Earthquake, was a magnitude 9.0 (Mw) undersea megathrust earthquake off the coast of Japan that occurred at 14:46 JST (05:46 UTC) on Friday, 11 March 2011,[5][6][7] with the epicenter approximately 70 kilometres (43 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku and the hypocenter at an underwater depth of approximately 32 km (20 mi).[5][8]

My concerns are:

  • Lead sentence is too long with too many concepts to be digested.
  • Sentence needs to be segmented into key sections some of which will be bundled: Identification; naming (from whose perspective?); Japanese naming and English equiv; epicentre's geographic location; hypocentre; Date/day/time; strength; type of quake; etc. (as you can see quite a bit is stuffed into this sentence)
  • the Japanese naming and English translations dont appear to treated in an orderly manner (probably need a sentence for themselves). Note that the first set of Japanese characters translate as 'Northeast Pacific offshore earthquake', and the second as 'East Japan earthquake' (using Bing translater). Also, the phrase 'also known as the 2011 Tohoku earthquake' seems to be misplaced - should it not be after 'the Great East Japan Earthquake'?

As I am unfamiliar with Japanese and preferred methods of dealing with these matters, I am hoping someone with a good grasp of Japanese and English can have a crack at it and do it justice.

Thanks, Benyoch ...Don't panic! Don't panic!... (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Regretfully, I have to pile on here. This is the sentence (actually its second part) I have a problem with: "The earthquake moved Honshu (the main island of Japan) 2.4 m (8 ft) east and shifted the Earth on its axis by estimates of between 10 cm (4 in) and 25 cm (10 in).[19][20][21]"

Firstly, I've went to see the sources and I have to say that the people who wrote them don't have an idea even of simple geometry. The DW source and the Montreal gazette are equally inept in producing sensible citation, while the NY times provides better and well formed explanation. None of the newspapers cited actually provided any link to track the information, but I'll assume that the interviews are correct, and the people giving them were indeed specialists.

The second part of the problem is the way the sentence is written: how does one define an "axis shift", I would do it by angular degrees (minutes, seconds etc.), but here we've been given linear measurements, so where exactly this is supposed to be measured? At the poles? 80 km in the sky, at the mass center (where there is no shift, obviously) ... after reading the source it's clear that the shift is measured on the earth surface (even though it's ill defined). Furthermore it's pretty obvious that the shift of mass is responsible for, if any, tilting of the axis, not the earthquake directly. Also in the NY times source it's explicitly stated that the shift was about the "figure axis", and not the rotation axis of the Earth – this is not mentioned here, and the difference is enormous. The style is really misleading and I believe the second part of the sentence should be removed. Also this would improve a bit on the otherwise sensation-seeking tone perceivable from that particular sentence.Kshegunov (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Convert article to be less news-y

This article has a lot of information in it that is "news-y" in nature (things like Google People Finder being used, lots of "As of" material from around the initial incident, overly specific details about long-dormant relief efforts, etc.) and should be cleaned up to reflect a longer-term view. 146.209.160.253 (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

magnitude 9.03 (Mw)

Is it an error?78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree - the references all quote magnitude 9.0 from USGS, not 9.03. Where did this number come from? Carl-PG74 (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
This man says 9.03. Maybe he's reading this Wikipedia article. Besides, earthquakes never have more than 1 number after the dot, to my knowledge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drhWhd-i4oE 78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Damage from the earthquake alone

How much damage/casualties from the earthquake alone (not the tsunami)? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122751
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

About aftershocks

I've been updated aftershocks, but is it better to update aftershocks referenced on Ｍ5.0以上の余震回数(that means "different number of magnitude of the aftershock table M5.0 or more) instead of 震度1以上の余震の最大震度別地震回数表(that means "different number of maximum seismic intensity of the aftershock earthquake table one or more" of Japan Meteorological Agency)? I think that it might have poor meanings on seismic intensity of JMA out of Japan, in the other hand, it may have some meanings that update with same measure in this article. In addition, the magnitudes announced by JMA (Mj) at the first have a little differences when comparing with moment magnitude (Mw) - are increasing in large number of magnitude such as the main shock -, causing necessity to warn tsunami(s) spread to every regions of Japan as fast as possible, then, JMA researches Mw later than announced Mj, and the table that I've just suggested has some corrections in later.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)--Please see also Japan Meteorological Agency seismic intensity scale.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Largest in Japan.

Is it? The 869 Sanriku earthquake was believed to could have been around 9.0. 78.156.109.166 (talk) 10:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

"around 9.0" has recently proposed by Tsunami deposit researches.

  1. M 8.3　Utsu, T., 2004, Catalog of Damaging Earthquakes in the World (Through 2002), the Dbase file distributed at the memorial party of Prof. Tokuji Utsu held in Tokyo.
  2. M 8.3 ± 1/4 宇佐美龍夫 (Tatsuo Usami) (2003). 日本被害地震総覧. 東京大学出版会. ISBN 9784130607599.
  3. M 8.3, Mw 8.4 国立天文台 [in Japanese] (2011). 理科年表 平成24年. 丸善. p. 721. ISBN 9784621084397.
  4. around 9.0 proposed by Koketsu, K., Kaminuma, K., individually, at The 190th meeting of The Coordinating Comittee for Earthquake Prediction, Japan (CCEP) (2011)

Please see also ja:貞観地震 or 869 Sanriku earthquake.--ジャコウネズミ (talk) 10:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Earth axis shift

Having accurate Leica GPS based survey equipment available to me the evening (locally) after the earthquake, I was unable to use it for my work and had to revert to a more conventional piece of equipment. I had discovered a problem when checking the GPS system against known positions. I was finding between 130-135mm deviation, consistently in the same direction, which can only be the axis shift. This was measured at around midnight at London Southend Airport, UK. By the next morning the GPS satellites must have been recalibrated, as everything was back to normal.Yevad (talk) 10:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference to previous earthquakes "with tsunamis"

The article currently states that Other major earthquakes with tsunamis struck the Sanriku Coast region in 1896 and in 1933. The statement is unsourced, and I think it doesn't really need one per WP:BLUE. These two prior disasters are now almost always discussed as part of the historical background for 3.11. There was actually another earthquake that caused a tsunami leading to dozens of deaths and significant property damage in the same area, and that earthquake/tsunami is frequently, if not usually, also discussed in this same context.[17]

I was going to add a reference to the latter earthquake (Other major earthquakes with tsunamis struck the Sanriku Coast region in 1896, 1933 and 1960.) but since the sentence is in the section titled "Geology" it seemed inappropriate as the relevant geological event took place thousands of miles away. But from that point of view the current sentence's references to "with tsunamis" and "the Sanriku Coast region" is also inappropriate. The 2011 earthquake was centered away from the Sanriku coast and affected a much larger area than just the Sanriku Coast (in the narrow sense in which the latter term is usually used), and the reference to tsunamis is actually fairly irrelevant if the section is supposed to be about geology.

I think discussion of previous earthquake and tsunami damage in the region is definitely important ("2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami#Background", perhaps?), but it should be covered in a more comprehensive manner than it currently is, and the relevant sentence in the "Geology" section should probably not mention the "Sanriku Coast" or "tsunamis".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Jyaku20's addition

The source is a Japanese newspaper called Asahi Shimbun and part of the story includes comments from seismologist Kenji Satake making comparisons with the earlier 869 Sanriku earthquake event. A few things that were added are fine, but the magnitude of the event is being overstated, as the newspaper article says magnitude 8.3, yet the editor is saying 8.6–9.0. That's a misrepresentation of the source and should be avoided. I've adjusted the addition several times and left a note on the (new) user's talk page, but wanted to also bring this up here.

Dawnseeker2000 03:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Jyaku20, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that you must say what the sources say. One cannot add material that is not supported by reliable sources. Can you please explain the reason you're adding material that directly contradicts the source that you added? Thank you, Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

May the better editor just stop the reverting and if this gets to be too much of a problem, just bring it up at one of the noticeboards or find an alternative way of resolving the issue. Dustin (talk) 02:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
(Had an edit conflict there) – Jyaku20, one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that you must say what the sources say. One cannot add material that is not supported by reliable sources. Can you please explain the reason you're adding material that directly contradicts the source that you added? Thanks, I'm thinking of using a noticeboard. I just can't see how the user thinks this is acceptable. Dawnseeker2000 01:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Jyaku20, I think you don't understand how WP works. You just inserted the M9 statement again with the edit summary "And I'm challenging the 8.3. A 1142 year time interval megathrust won't be a small on the magnitude scale". You're challenging the source that you added? I don't understand that, and your edits are corrupting the article. That's not good for anyone that reads this article. And I'm shocked. Dawnseeker2000 03:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Having a look at 869 Sanriku earthquake, two sources quoted in the lead of that article give the 8.6 and 9.0 numbers that Jyaku20 is inserting. In fairness, for something which happened so long ago it seems strange to quote one specific number from one source. A range seems more reasonable to me. That means it becomes a question of which sources are preferrable, bearing in mind that Japan also has a separate rating scale which may be a factor in the differences. I won't make any comment on which numbers are preferable without looking at all of it in much more detail. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, just a point on Jyaku20's latest edit summary - Jyaku clearly says that they are challenging the 8.3 number. So I think the second sentence intends to say that "8.3 is too small for a megathrust with a 1142-year interval." Dawnseeker, I think you have to give a small allowance for the possibility that Jyaku is not a native English speaker. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at this. My stance on that article is that the newspaper source that's being used to support the higher rating is not adequate and I'm invoking WP:EXCEPTIONAL. We should only use the highest quality sources for claims like that. And yes, English is obviously a second language. That doesn't mean we disregard the core principles of WP. Dawnseeker2000 04:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss that article. I believe the 8.3 number is based on this 2001 scientifc journal article. The article stating 9.0 which you are rejecting is from 2007 and is quoting
"...a joint research team of Osaka City University, Tohoku University, Tokyo University and others ... The finding, based on evidence that traces of the tsunami following the quake impacted a wider area than previously thought"
So in other words, the 2007 research is saying that the previous research (i.e. the 2001 source for 8.3) may have underestimated the strength of the tsunami. The Asahi article from 2011 reports the 8.3 number, so I have searched for the 2007 reports by the researchers for confirmation, but have found some even newer research. This 2012 journal article says the Jogan was "8.4 or larger" (first paragraph of the first page). It was published in 2012 and quotes the 2001 article in its references, so obviously it has considered the older research and disagrees with it. Then there is another 2012 article by a different set of authors which also says (page 9):
The earthquake magnitude of the AD869 Jōgan event was assumed to be around Mw=8.4 (Satake et al., 2008; Namegaya et al., 2010; Sugawara et al., 2011) based on the assumption that the maximum extent of sand deposits represented the minimum inundation distance. However, we might have significantly underestimated the inundation distance of the AD869 Jōgan tsunami.
If AD869 Jōgan tsunami deposits are indeed present along the Sanriku coast, then the length of the generating fault rupture will need to be extended further north and consequently the magnitude of the earthquake would be increased, perhaps to as much as a Mw=9.0.
So we have two recent (2012) scientific paper saying basically "at least 8.4, maybe as much as 9.0". In these circumstances, I disagree with our article sticking to 8.3. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:15, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful, these are the kinds of exceptional sources that can be used in these articles, and it would be good if someone has the motivation to make some improvements based on what these articles say, but we cannot have this article as it stands because it misrepresents the source. That's what I want; text that accurately summarizes appropriate sources. These last few days I've been inneffective at communicating that to the new user. Dawnseeker2000 05:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Done. I think "at least 8.4" is the best way to describe it. I am going to include a mention of "up to 9.0" in the other article, but I don't think it is necessary here. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tōhōku Earthquake Hiragana Generation Not Working

The Kanji, Hiragana, Katakana listed for the Tōhōku Earthquake is 東北地方太平洋沖地震. But You would have a hard time typing that on Mac H.K. without outside knowledge, based on the transcription.

Is this a general feature of the Romaji, or is this a gap in the native predictive dictionary of Hiragana and Katakana on Mac OS X? I can get to it through "Touk"yo and "Bei"jing, but "Tohoku" doesn't reach the right joint character. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamtheclayman (talk • contribs) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue with theWikipedia article; the term used in Japanese is the Kanji you have above, as verified by checking against the Japanese version of the article - see jp:東北地方太平洋沖地震. How you type that in with a Hiragana keyboard is another matter, unrelated to this article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand your problem Adamtheclayman. Judging from the title you have given this section, you are making both "o" letters in the word a long "ō". But as you can see from the article title, only the first "o" in "Tōhoku" is long; the second "o" is short.
I am using Windows, not a Mac, but if I enter "Touhouku" I get "東邦区". But entering "Touhoku" gives the correct "東北". I hope this explanation helps. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S. It appears you posted the same question twice, so I deleted the first one. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2016

The epicenter numbers seem to be off. In the article, it says "its epicenter approximately 72 km (45 mi) east of the Oshika Peninsula of Tōhoku, Japan," and "Sendai was the nearest major city to the earthquake, 130 km (81 mi) from the epicenter;"

These numbers should be reversed. The correct numbers would be 130 km east of Oshika Peninsula and 72 km away from Sendai.

216.165.95.72 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Not done: the peninsula lies between the epicentre and Sendai, so the numbers are correct. Sendai is west of the peninsula. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 161 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Magnitude of earthquake - 9.0 vs 9.1

Why the change from 9.1 to 9.0? The USGS is generally considered reliable, even authoritative, and it says 9.1. I note that reference was first modified to claim the USGS title said 9.0 (contrary to what the actual USGS article said), and now the reference has been removed entirely, and replaced with a paper from 2012. The USGS article was updated 2016 (quote: "Official Magnitude updated 11-07-2016"), so it's not like the 2012 paper supersedes it. Why the change? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

My intention was to stop the unnecessary (and sometimes careless) back and forth changes. We only have a few articles that use a range, but it has worked well in the past on articles with a lot of back and forth action. I was surprised to see this flurry of changes today, especially 5.5 years later, but activity does pick up on earthquake articles after newsworthy events. So thats it for me. I was just looking for some stability. I was hoping to find a source with a wider range. Do you prefer the single value? Dawnseeker2000 06:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I just wonder why there is a need for a range. This appears to be picking up a 4-year old article reporting on data presented in the immediate aftermath and using it to supersede current information. This after someone tried to change the original value by changing the title of a reference. In the immediate aftermath of an earthquake, there is a range of magnitudes published, because not all organizations have access to the same data. My understanding is that over time, as the various organizations collect data from all over the world and compare results, they tend to converge on a single result. I'm not aware of any claims that the USGS process is flawed and current results should be discarded in favor of earlier incomplete results discussed at a conference. I do particularly object to deleting the USGS reference, as those results are usually viewed as definitive. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not an expert, and it may be true that sometimes there is a tendency to settle on one value after a period of time, but I think that all of the work that's been done to estimate the magnitude of these events is valid. It would be short-sighted for laypeople like us to say that one value is more correct than another. It's just important to realize that different people with different training using different equipment yields different results and that there may be value in suppressing this back-and-forth editing by using a range. Dawnseeker2000 04:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 178 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Abstract of the 191th meeting of CCEP - website of the Japanese Coordinating Committee for Earthquake Prediction
  2. ^ USGS Updates Magnitude of Japan’s 2011 Tohoku Earthquake to 9.0 - website of the United States Geological Survey
  3. ^ "Press Conference by Prime Minister Naoto Kan". Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet. Archived from the original on 18 April 2011. Retrieved 1 April 2011. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  4. ^ "Kan names quake at pep talk". The Japan Times. 2 April 2011. Archived from the original on 5 April 2011. Retrieved 2 April 2011.
  5. ^ a b "Magnitude 9.0 – Near The East Coast Of Honshu, Japan". United States Geological Survey (USGS). Archived from the original on 5 April 2011. Retrieved 13 March 2011.
  6. ^ Reilly, Michael (11 March 2011). "Japan's quake updated to magnitude 9.0". New Scientist (Short Sharp Science ed.). Archived from the original on 5 April 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2011.
  7. ^ "New USGS number puts Japan quake at 4th largest". CBS News. Associated Press. 14 March 2011. Archived from the original on 5 April 2011. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  8. ^ "Tsunami hits north-eastern Japan after massive quake". BBC News. 11 March 2011. Archived from the original on 11 March 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2011. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)


Cite error: There are <ref group=fn> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=fn}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Tōhoku_earthquake_and_tsunami/Archive_5&oldid=1143536916"