Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami/Archive 6

Table of Casualties
Is it just me or is something really weird about that table of casualties by country. Seems like it got really messed up. --Reubenator 20:02, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I can no longer see the table of casualties, either in the current article or in previous revisions. Am I going mad, or is something weird going on? Deadlock 19:39, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Some numpty blanked the template. Deadlock 19:53, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * There is now a huge space between the table and the text. I'm not sure how to remove it, anyone up to it? --Falcorian 17:59, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Please add images to your watchlists
Hi,

Can some of you click on the images within this article and then click on "watch" to add them to your watchlists? For some reason, these are being regularly targeted by vandals (not the images themselves, just the accompanying text).

See for instance
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami.gif&curid=1334121&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:2004_Indonesia_Tsunami_Complete.gif&curid=1344000&action=history

-- Curps 21:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Indigenous Tribes
I am very suprised that this is not in the article or let alone no discussion has taken place on the status of the many Indigenous Tribes located in or around the Indian Ocean.
 * AP article:
 * ''Government officials and anthropologists believe that ancient knowledge of the movement of wind, sea and birds may have saved the five indigenous tribes on the Indian archipelago of Andaman and Nicobar islands from the tsunami
 * ''only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years
 * ''only about 400 to 1,000 members alive today from the Great Andamanese, Onges, Jarawas, Sentinelese and Shompens. Some anthropological DNA studies indicate the generations may have spanned back 70,000 years

Great place to begin | News Articles:
 * Fate Of Indigenous Tribes Unknown CBS News | AP
 * Stone-age tribes evacuated from Indian isles Reuters
 * Ancient island tribe flees inland to avoid devastation London Free Press | AP
 * Islands in the Universe Tech Central Station

I would like to contribute to this article but do to its high volume and complex edits I will sit this one out and let someone more manageable. PEACE ~ RoboAction 23:58, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Announcing intention to move site to " 2004 Asian Tsunami"
Hi all,

I have read through almost everything one has to read with regards to moving the site to a new proposed site at " 2004 Asian Tsunami" (due respect to Curps).

Doing a simple search with Goggles, Yahoo & MSN give ample reasons for the proposed move.

I propose the move based on my own frustration at looking for the Wikipedia site in reference to the Asian Tsunami Disaster and could not find it till I stumbled on this "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" site.

I agree while it was done real-time because of the scale of the disaster, we should now begin the clean-up even if it means moving an entire site to it's rightful name & meaning.

Kenkam (talk) 8:16am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

see (Wikipedia:Requested Moves) to place your votes to 'support' or 'oppose'.


 * This is an encylopaedia. Most of those names are too ambiguous for the title of an encyclopaedia article, but that can be used as redirects (and some already are) until they need to be individually disambiguated. I don't think the page needs to be moved. That cause of the disaster was the earthquake and the page covers this and the subsequent consequences. Jooler 00:42, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" is far more accurate than "2004 Asian Tsunami". By the rationale the public media decides the names of the event, then the U.S. presidential election, 2004 should be renamed "The 2004 Election" or "America Decides". I also find it hard to believe it is difficult to find this page on Wikipedia, it has been prominently on the Main page since it happened; and 2004 Asian Tsunami is a redirect to the page in the event you enter that into the search. --kjd 01:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't so much the name itself, but helping people find the article(s) - let's try to view the woods instead of the trees for now. I doubt everyone starts at the Wikipedia main page. We could use more redirects and those italic boxes at the top of 'most likely to be viewed' articles. For example, temporary boxes on Tsunami and Earthquake would save a lot of people a lot of time, even if it's technically against the rules. A redirect for Asian earthquake might help at least some people. We're building in cyberspace, and it's easy enough to remove some of the redirects in a month or so when the world has settled on a name. 8 Jan 2005

Proposal to oppose "2004 Asian Tsunami" and an alternative

 * Kenkam, while you were still using an anonymous IP address


 * you spammed every article in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with links to the site http://www.asiantsunami.org/ which is presumably your website. You obviously have a vested interest (financial?) in promoting the name "Asian Tsunami".  For this reason any such move on your part is suspect and will be reverted.


 * I think "Indian Ocean" is better than "Asian" because it doesn't exclude the victims in Somalia, who though much fewer in number are no less important.


 * Perhaps we should split this article into two parts: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, a relatively small article with technical information about the earthquake (the "quake characteristics" part), and Indian Ocean tsunami disaster (no year is really necessary, and there's already a redirect with this name), that would cover "tsunami characteristics" and all the casualties and the bulk of the current article. Any comments?  -- Curps 01:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't say I'm wildly enthusiastic about this idea, but it does seem to get around the issue of the current article name being "earthquake" but talking mostly about the tsunami and its effects. And it avoids the creation of a 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami page.  The link to a section of a sub-page of that would be a sentence in itself.  Perhaps the titles should be 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami?  Since the two are intuitive variations of each other it helps casual editors who might otherwise have trouble remembering whether it was Indian Ocean earthquake disaster or some other variation.  But I'm supportive in general.  BanyanTree 03:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami or 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami are good ways to go. I think that "tsunami" should be mentioned in the title, as "tsunami" has become almost synonymous with the disaster. Fadetoblack 02:49, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, this was already discussed nearly two months ago, and it seems Kenkam was the only person who really wanted it moved to "tsunami" (and that was mostly because of his website). The actual event was an earthquake; the tsunami was the result.  Besides, "2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami" and "2004 Asian tsunami" already redirect to the current page.  ral315 03:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Clarification of 'rarity' of Indian Ocean tsunamis
One phrase in the "Signs and warnings" section might be misleading as it is being used to illustrate the rarity of tsunamis in the Indian Ocean. "...the last major one was caused by the Krakatoa eruption of 1883." There are several sources that mention tsunamis triggered in the last century in the Indian Ocean, some maybe as relevant as the Krakatoa one, and the subsection of this article "unfamiliarity with warning signs" itself mentions the 1907 tsunami event, which is confusing in relation to the earlier bit about the 1883 event being the last major one. More generally, this site says "There have been 7 records of tsunamis set off by earthquakes near Indonesia, Pakistan and one at Bay of Bengal in the last century." This is still much rarer than the Pacific, but from a brief look through, it seems that the 1945 Pakistan event and 1941 Bay of Bengal event are at least deserving of mention.

What I really wanted to clarify was whether the "last major one was ... 1883" phrase was written with these other tsunamis in mind, and indeed what 'major' means in this context, or whether that phrase was intentionally written to imply that the other tsunamis were not 'major'.


 * I think any previous tsunamis were all local ones caused by much smaller earthquakes. A tsunami warning system is really needed for the tsunamis that cross oceans and devastate shores across an ocean, where the original earthquake was felt only slightly or not at all. -- Curps 03:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I've just been reading a book about the Krakatoa eruption and its tsunami (Krakatoa - The Day the World Exploded - by Simon Winchester) and it seems to have only killed people (about 36,000) in the local vicinity (Java and Sumatra). Though the tsunami was visible on coastlines as far away as Sri Lanka and Africa (swells a few feet in height), it did not devastate those distant shores. If you call a tsunami "major" I guess you are either referring to the death toll and destruction, OR the distance it propagated over. The differences between the Krakatoa tsunami and this one are quite interesting, but I guess this isn't the place to go into detail. And I can't find out enough about the other earthquakes and tsunamis (in the Indian Ocean between 1883 and 2004) to really compare them properly, which is a pity. At least the Wikipedia tsunami page mentions the 1945 Pakistan tsunami. More here about the 1945 Pakistan tsunami Carcharoth 19:40, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The strength and directionality of a tsunami will depend on the circumstances that produced it. In this latest tsunami, the main force was delivered east-west, while Bangladesh directly north was hardly affected.  In the case of Krakatoa, the island was located in the strait between Java and Sumatra, so those land masses probably shielded some other areas.  And Krakatoa being a volcano rather than an earthquake probably made the circumstances different. But I guess from our human-centric point of view, what makes a tsunami "major" is its death toll.  So that's probably the standard used here. -- Curps 23:33, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maldives death toll
It's way out of date. Maldive sources themselves list 82.

Related pages needing attention
This page seems to have settled down and is of quite a high standard. But the related impact pages for specific countries could really do with attention. Especially
 * Impact_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_Indonesia
 * Impact_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_India
 * Impact_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_Sri_Lanka
 * Impact_of_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake_on_Thailand

These are large topics which deserve far greater effort and the sort of articles that Wikipedia really excels at. The media organisations are too busy reporting latest news to provide useful summaries. :ChrisG 19:08, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Beware vandals inserting geographic nonsense
Yesterday vandals inserted geographic nonsense about Ethiopia and Solomon Islands and about the earthquake being felt in Mauritius rather than Singapore. Be on the lookout for this sort of thing. -- Curps 21:37, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:Kenkam is creating an entire duplicate or parallel article
User:Kenkam has repeatedly proposed changing the name of this article to Asian Tsunami, and the consensus has repeatedly gone against him.

He has now created Asian tsunami : The earthquake, which is an entire duplicate or parallel article! He has uploaded a bunch of entirely new images for this new article.

It is against Wikipedia policy to have duplicate articles on the same topic (see Duplicate articles). The only purpose of this seems to be circumventing the rejection of the name change.

I have therefore listed this new article in Votes for deletion

If you want to vote, go here:
 * Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asian tsunami : The earthquake

-- Curps 03:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I have place a compliant on Curps for his personal attacks against me and his blatant deletes on my articles, comments & contributions. While I have not touched his initiated article 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, he has moved my articles (& others) about the Asian Tsunami without consultation (see replies to Curps)and (see complaints against Curps by other users) and (see my compliant against Curps)kenkam 06:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I was initiate willing to work in collaboration with Curps but now that I know his vendetta and his insecurities about his own article I have decide to work separately on the Asian Tsunami event as there is lots to cover. kenkam 06:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Your personal attacks are unacceptable. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 13:42, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

NextWish reporting in, here's some interesting trivia I found accroding to his signature on *WHT (Username: DreamMaster), kenkam runs a SEO company. He also runs *AsianTsunamiVideos.com his reasons for wanting to rename the article is pretty clear (to increase the ranking of his website and then later down the track in six months time use the site for SEO puproses.) In case he changes it, this is kenkam's current signature *(screenshot) on WHT :


 * '''Hosting for SEO - Multiple Class C IP hosting for SEO/SEM purposes


 * http://www.HostingforSEO.com'''


 * NextWish, WHOIS seems to indicate the HostingForSEO.com and asiantsunamivideos.com are owned by "Agustin Castells" in Uruguay, not Kenkam in Singapore. However, asiantsunami.org is owned by ___________, as we already knew (though this does not seem to be a working website). And in the interest of full disclosure we should note that you own http://www.waveofdestruction.org/ and thus appear to be a business rival of Ken. -- Curps 05:05, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Curps, we use acronyms in place of names in the internet for a purpose and that is to prevent identity theft. We will appreciate it if you can STOP all further personal attacks and concentrate on the article instead. 'AsianTsunami.org' is hosted on a free-hosted site and is dependent on their bandwidth. As a ".org" the site is a dedicate non-profit forum in support of the relief work by international communities. By suggesting that the site is a business rival to anyone is totally erroneous and indicative of your lack of sensitivities. kenkam 10:32, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

... "in the interest of full disclosure" see Curps' compliant history. (Harassment Compliant by another Wiki contributor)


 * Ken, you misunderstand. There was no personal attack here at all.


 * User:NextWish accused you of owning HostingForSEO.com and asiantsunamivideos.com and I pointed out that you apparently don't, because public WHOIS information shows the owner as someone in Uruguay. So I was actually refuting NetWish's accusation about you.  I then pointed that the domain you own was not asiantsunamivideos.com but asiantsunami.org, and cited public WHOIS information again.  However, the fact that you own AsianTsunami.org was already known from the fact that you had spammed it earlier (using your previous anonymous IP) to most of the articles in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (including pages about some of the victims).  Anyways, if you're worried about identity theft you should contact your domain registrar and alter the registration information on your domain name.


 * The harassment complaint you cite involved a user named "Plautus Satire". He didn't just dispute with me, he disputed with a large number of people (most strongly with Raul654) and was eventually personally blocked by Jimbo Wales himself. -- Curps 08:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

TRUCE ... '''Dearest Curps, thank you for defending me (I think). Let's put all this naming nonsense behind us and instead concentrate on the article, let it eventually settle down, using a most recognisable title that would help history remember the tragic event in it's rightful place ... okie ?''' kenkam 13:07, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope we can all work together to improve Wikipedia in the future. -- Curps 21:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

earthquake destruction vs. tsunami destruction
Maybe some of you can help me understand something here. Why are we hearing little and especially seeing little (as in video) on how much of the destruction in Asia was caused by the initial earthquake as opposed to the tsunami? Last I remember, a 9.0 earthquake would cause MASSIVE destruction to any land near it. Yet most of the deaths and ruin is being attributed to the water?! How can that be?

None of the private videos being shown are of the earth shaking or of buildings swaying or collapsing? I would have thought we would have seen video surveillance from cameras at some of the high-end resorts in the area of the usual shaking and such. And even if there is a logical explanation such as the quake happened too far under water, why are people not talking about how unusual that would be? Do we often have magnitude 9 quakes that don't cause a lot of damage because they are under the ocean?

What am I missing?


 * You might be interested in the USGS "Did you feel it?" map -- Cyrius|&#9998; 13:41, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the reason is because the quake took place underwater, so in comparison to the deaths caused by the tsunami, very little damage was actually done by the quake itself. The first section of the article, Quake Characteristics, has more information - apparently the epicenter was about 150km off the coast. PaulHammond 13:51, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)


 * The video which surfaced this past weekend showed considerable earthquake damage in Banda Aceh, but of course the subsequent tsunami completely obliterated it. The link quoted by Cyrius above shows that the area where the earthquake had "strong" effects were limited to Sumatra, and the earthquake was little felt elsewhere. -- Arwel 14:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for all the info guys. But it still doesn't seem right that a magnitude 9.0 even that deep in the ocean wouldn't leave massive ruins all along its fissure points. I've concluded from other data on this disaster that much of the quake's energy went into the creation and strength of the tsunami. And that probably some of the destruction is underwater in the reefs surrounding Sumatra. But I guess my brain can't wrap itself around that magnitude and few places with "strong" effects. Maybe I've studied land based earthquakes too much to make sense of this. Do these seeming inconsistencys bother anyone else?


 * I don't see inconsistencies. The Sunda Trench lies in the Andaman Sea, and the epicenter was to its south.  If it had been under Tokyo or Los Angeles, for example, the city would have been leveled.  As it was, the closest populated area was northern Sumatra, but at that distance the apparent strength of the earthquake in Sumatra would have been (taking a wild guess) in the mid to low 8-point range (and, according the useful link above, by the time it reached tourist regions on the Malay peninsula it would have been at most in the 5-range, which many people don't even notice).  I've been through a 8.1 and no buildings fell down, though I was in a place with better building codes.  Most of the easily visible damage from earthquakes is to multi-story buildings that collapse, as seen from the all the images of bodies being pulled out from concrete rubble after the Bam and Mexico City earthquakes.  The only place with large buildings in this impoverished region were the towns along the coast such as Banda Aceh and Meulaboh.  These towns were then hit by a massive tsunami that caused even more damage.  The tsunami damage is thus obscuring the earthquake damage.


 * As for actual video of buildings swaying, there's scarcely a place on the planet that is less likely to have a lot of people with camcorders on at the time. Not only is the average income so low that local Indonesians can't afford their own cameras, but there has been ban on travel to the region because of the ongoing insurgency so there were no rich tourists, journalists or other foreigners wandering around taking pictures at the time.  That's why so much of the video coverage is of waves hitting the resort regions of Thailand, Maldives, and southern Sri Lanka - that's where the tourists and their video cameras were.  Also, more locals there are wealthy enough to have their own cameras.  Similarly, there is little footage of tsunamis coming ashore in rebel-held northeastern Sri Lanka and the coast of the very unstable country of Somalia simply because of the comparative lack of cameras around.  BanyanTree 16:19, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Page move discussion
(from Requested moves)
 * 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake &rarr; 2004 Asian Tsunami

2004 Asian Tsunami is a better known term (see Search Results) & easier to use & remember term than 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Kenkam 8:33am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)

(Reply to Michael Warren) Thanks for your comments Michael, 'cause and effect' is the reason why I suggested the change in the first place. Let's say a 'Mr Drunk' throws a 'cigar' and starts a fire at 'ABC Stadium'. Do we call it the 'Mr Drunk Fire', 'ABC Stadium Fire' or the 'Cigar Fire' ? I would bet most will call it the 'ABC Stadium Fire' and the stadium was not the cause of the fire ... in this case, the earthquake was the cause and the tsunami was the effect and it happened in Asia affecting majority Asians that's why ALL search engine hits supports this term "Asian Tsunami" ... ;-)Kenkam 9:44am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)
 * Support - This proposed change will help many others who are searching through the internet for more information regarding the Asian Tsunami Disaster. Kenkam 8:35am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time) - you can't support your own proposal
 * Oppose - 1. Disaster did not solely affect Asian countries, although it primarily affected them. 2. Tsunami was the effect, not the cause, which was the earthquake. Note that such a move would directly affect a large number of pages, since all subpages and related articles (at last count, some 15; and a category) would also have to be renamed. See also Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake/Archive 2, general suggestion has been to create redirects from other descriptions of the disaster to avoid such problems. -- Michael Warren | Talk 01:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support - I do not know why people call it indian ocean when it happened off-indonesia. Asian tsunami seems to be a better word becuase i see it in the news everyday. SteveAxe No prior contributions to Wikipedia before voting here. Prove you are not a sock puppet. -- Curps 02:04, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Reply to Jonathunder) Thanks for your sggestion. We can't call it the "Somalia Tsunami" (joking) ... more Asians are affected than any other place, people etc. I would't call it the "Indonesia Tsunami" because the earthquake happened in Asia and affected 95% Asians ... Kenkam 9:56am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)
 * Oppose. The effects extended beyond Asia. From the article: "Somalia was hit harder than Bangladesh despite being much farther away." Jonathunder 01:41, 2005 Jan 8 (UTC)


 * Oppose

Using his previous anonymous IP User:203.120.68.68 (contributions), User:Kenkam spammed every article in Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake with links to the site http://www.asiantsunami.org/, which is presumably his site. He thus has a vested interest (financial?) in promoting any such name change.

At the time the article was created (by me, actually), the known death toll was only in the hundreds and the earthquake was the biggest in the world in 40 years, so the earthquake was the main story. Now of course, it is very much overshadowed by the tsunami. I would support splitting into two articles: the bulk of the article would move to Indian Ocean tsunami disaster (a redirect already exists with this name), while the "quake characteristics" section would remain in a smaller article that would retain the name 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. We should prefer "Indian Ocean" to "Asian" to avoid excluding non-Asian victims in Somalia and elsewhere, who though much fewer in number are no less important.

There is still ongoing discussion in Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and the consensus so far is that a name change is premature. So it is not even really appropriate to move the discussion here yet.

PS, User:SteveAxe appears to be a sock puppet... no contributions prior to voting here.

-- Curps 01:53, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Reply to Curps) Thank you for your contributions here. I fully understand your emotional attachment to changing to the proposed name because you had originated it but I think everyone here should also know that you had DELETED my friendly comments to the suggested name see talk page of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake ... this action is absolute vandalism and I am sure everyone will agree. That is why I have no choice but to refer this matter to the administrator's intervention and place a vote to the matter. While I am not suggesting the banning of Curps (we value your contributions), I really like to see some courtesy to others and a true respect to their opinions. Your other allegations of financial gain is absurd. Can I ever gain anything if I come clean and post my proposals according to accepted Wikipedia rules ? My suggestions to the change in article title is purely administrative because I see so many references to the "Asian Tsunami" term and had feedback from others that they really don't know why somebody would like to call it "Indian Ocean earthquake" at all.Kenkam 10:25am, 08 Jan 2005 (Singapore Time)


 * Ken, the only truncation I made was here: because it simply duplicated what you wrote earlier on that same page (quoting Google statistics, etc).  Since you feel this was unfair I have now restored it.  However, you are filling up that talk page with multiple sections that all say the same thing -- don't you agree they should consolidated into one?


 * You cannot denying your spamming of the http://www.asiantsunami.org/ link. Do you deny that User:SteveAxe is your sock puppet?  -- Curps 02:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose - First off, if the article were to move anywhere, it would be 2004 Asian tsunami (notice the lack of capitalisation on that last word). While much of the media has been using the phrase "Asian tsunami" to refer to the disaster, many others have been calling it the "Indian Ocean tsunami".

"I would't call it the "Indonesia Tsunami" because the earthquake happened in Asia and affected 95% Asians" - Kenkam, the earthquake happened closer to Indonesia than any other country, and the tsunami hit there harder than anywhere else, with the death toll in Indonesia making up more than half the total death toll. Are you saying that Indonesia is not a part of Southeast Asia? Because Asia says otherwise. Or are you saying that Indonesia is not a part of the Indian Ocean? Because the earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean and really only majorly affected countries on their Indian Ocean coastlines. So I really have no idea what your argument for change here is. - Mark 02:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Reply to Mark) Mark, thanks for your question. I simply want the title of the Wikipedia article to be considered to be changed to "2004 Asian Tsunami" because there is a vast majority in support of it. There are after all 3.5 million Googles sites that reflect "Asian Tsunami" as oppose to the 900,000 + for the current name. If I am wrong, then a lot of others who call it Asian Tsunami would be too ... ;-) kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose -- a) the incident which started the whole tragedy was the earthquake which occurred in the east of the Indian Ocean; b) renaming the article "Asian tsunami" is exclusive of the people affected all down the coast of east Africa, while "Indian Ocean" is inclusive; c) I cannot believe that anyone can have any difficulty finding the article under the current name -- it has been prominently linked from the main page for nearly two weeks now, and has plenty of links from external sites; d) Wikipedia naming conventions would in any case preclude capitalisation of "tsunami" in the article name. -- Arwel 03:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Reply to Arwell) Thanks for the comments. While I disagree with you, I fully respect your thinking. The major difficulty here is that a whole lot of website refer to the event as Asian Tsunami although the article began in Wikipedia as something else. I for example was confused at first when I search the Wiki to post the event but I guess because of the real-time crises, everyone just contributed to the current site because if links to it. Outside Wikipedia is a totally different story. I hope members in Wiki can see my concern and agree with my logic ... which is majority win (even if means majority outside Wiki) ...;) kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oppose: Leave as is for now and redirect to it, while discussion is underway at Talk: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake about possible solutions. Asia-something leaves out the African countries involved, and something-tsunami ignores the cause of the tsunami. To be precise the title should be something along the lines of 2004 Sunda Trench earthquake and resulting Indian Ocean tsunami, but I'm not suggesting such a move. ;) BanyanTree 03:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) (Reply to BanyanTree) Dear BanyanTree, your name sounds so familiar, are you from Asia ... Singapore ? While I understand the complication to rename an article, I am sure that being in the epi-center of the event has lead you to realise that everyone in Asia calls it Asian Tsunami ... as in Asian Tsunami Disaster, Asian Tsunami Donations, Asian Tsunami Death Toll, Asian Tsunami Search & Rescue etc. I am in Singapore and that is why I advocate the change.kenkam 04:22, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure we're all grateful for your benevolence in granting Curps continued leave to edit; we value your contributions (all 35 of them, including edits to this page) as well. Since you're so big on "accepted Wikipedia rules," allow me to quote from the guidelines posted on this very page:
 * It is suggested that an attempt to gain consensus for a move first be attempted on the talk page of the article. If there is disagreement, or if the page move cannot be technically performed, then it is appropriate to list it here.

Consider mine a vote in opposition. ADH (t&m) 03:43, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC) (Reply to Austin Hair) Thanks and you are absolutely correct ! Consensus has already been there when 3.5 million sites refering to the event as Asian Tsunami ... need I say more ? My sincere apologies but there is a sharp disagreement on the present title (I am not alone) that is why we need some sort of closure to re-position the article for it's true intent.kenkam 04:14, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. It was an earthquake in the Indian Ocean and the article was created there for that reason. I don't see anough justification to move it since it is not misnamed. There should be appropriate redirects. I also query the capitalization of Tsunami in the suggested destination, and the use of the term "Asian" when the countries affected by the resulting tsunami are not restricted to that continent. If a consensus for a move is reached on the talk page, come back to us and I will not oppose. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I don't know if it is necessary to vote since Kenkam appears to be the only user in favor of this change. But anyway: 1) I would have appreciated if Kenkam first obtained some consensus on the article's talk page, as requested on this page and as ADH also pointed out. Google hits are not a consensus. Consensus comes from Wikipedia editors familiar with Wikipedia policy and conventions, discussing the merits and drawbacks of a change. You cannot infer that a large number of occurences of a term translates to support for a proposed article title change. 2) on tsunami vs. earthquake (and yes, it should be the lower-case form): I'm undecided on this one, perhaps a weak oppose to the change. Kenkam does have a point with his "Mr. Drunk Man" example; to be very precise, the plate subduction was the root cause of the earthquake, tsunamis, possible orbital shifts and movement of islands, and so on. However, as I understand it, there were a series of tsunamis (I am not entirely clear on the usage); I think that it is clearer to have the article called earthquake, and cover both the earthquake (which was a major 9.0-Richter event) and the resultant tsunamis. 3) I strongly oppose renaming from Indian Ocean to Asian. As many editors have already stated, Indian Ocean is far more precise. First, the epicenter of the quake was in the Indian Ocean, near the coast of Indonesia. Also, as others have said, countries directly affected are not limited to those in Asia, as several in Africa were affected by tsunamis as well. And many (most) countries in Asia were not affected at all (for example: China, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iraq, Singapore, Cambodia, Nepal, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so on). 4) With redirects, it does not really matter if someone goes to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake or to 2004 Asian earthquake&mdash;either way, they would end up in the same place. I do not see how having the article title be "Indian Ocean" could cause any confusion. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; (talk) 09:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose - think everyone elses comments covers it. violet/riga (t) 10:34, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Discussion should be moved to relevant Talk page; clearly not read for a Requested Move. For the record, a separation of Indian Ocean earthquake and Asian tsunami may be useful (seismic event vs the resulting tidal wave). "Asian tsunami" is fine since the tidal wave originated in Asia and primarily affected Asian countries (c 100:1 Asia:Africa death toll), and on the Wikipedia criterion of common usage clearly predominates. Rd232 13:12, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose A page split may be justified, but not a move.  Noisy | Talk 13:29, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Voting Closed by Initiator Hi all, thanks for all your comments and ideas. A wise man once said that "it is harder the change something you are used to than to scrub stubborn stains off your socks" ... I have decided not to pursue the moving of the article BUT will start initiating other asian tsunami aftermath related events, news and informations etc. by popular demand ... cheers ! kenkam 16:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Should not the article title, if to be change to anything, be changed to 2004 Indian Ocean Disaster? This is a non-specific title, that could encompass, without exclusion, the earthquake, the tsunamis and the affect on Asia, Africa and elsewhere. Both Indian Ocean Earthquake and Asian Tsunami' could be considered absolutist terms and restrictive. And justs because some of the press is dubbing the tragedy Asian Tsunamis does not necessarily make it right. Some are calling it the Tidal Wave Tragedy, and, as we know, that is scientifically incorrect.--Cyberjunkie 14:40, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd personally prefer "2004 Indian Ocean tsunami". But I don't think any page move should happen until the articles settle down. Remember that there's a bunch of other associated articles that would need to be moved for consistency. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 15:15, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect photo
Please remove the photo labeled "2004 Indian Ocean tsunami impacting Thailand shoreline". That is not correct. That is a photo from a previous Tsunami in China.


 * It has already been removed by the person who added it. -- Curps 01:11, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Critical chokepoint in global economic supply chain affected. Global shortages and price rise imminent ?
Its being reported that the the depth of the Straits of Malacca has been cut by a factor of more than 10 times to less than 30 metres, making it unsafe for ULCC supertankers.

Its also being reported that 2 USN ships are on the way and will arive 14th January, to remap the straits.

Any comments or updates ?


 * There a news story here. -- Anon.


 * I added this to the article. However the "global shortages" above seems very alarmist, there is no mention of any of that in the news stories. -- Curps 23:24, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * seems likely. price of oil is headed up as is ws vlcc.

Initial report
"The earthquake was initially reported as 6.8 on the Richter scale"

This is a typo right? The first report *I* remember seeing (newspaper I think) was 8.8. I can't imagine initial reports being _two_magnitudes_ different. Or is there some reason why it would be?

Update: According to some news articles I found with google, 6.8 is correct. Sorry. (It still seems strange to me though)


 * If you're still wondering why, it's because the Richter scale is inaccurate past 7.0- the moment magnitude scale is what's used for large quakes. ral315 20:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)

direct link from google to the article
Go to http://www.google.com/ There is a link Ways to help with tsunami relief On that page is in the section a link to this article --Walter 17:51, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Excellent! &#8211;&#8211; Constafrequent (talk page) 18:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Location of hypocenter
The Latitude and Longitude of the hypocenter of the main quake is given in the article as 3.316°N, 95.854°E. I presume this is using decimal points rather than the conventional degrees and minutes (see latitude and longitude). If so, then the better way to give it may be 3° 19' N, 95° 51.24 E. This form of latitude and longitude is necessary when using any of the range of tools to calculate distances between two points on earth, ie between the epicentre and another point. I have added this on the page, with the decimal version in brackets thereafter. Any objections? If I interpreted the latitude and longitude incorrectly, please correct. Zingi 10:13, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The coordinates from the primary source (USGS) are in decimal and should be displayed first. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 13:02, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. In your edits you have actually changed the coordinates, eg from 3.318N to 3.307N. Could you cite the source? Zingi 05:48, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The USGS source is here:
 * 3.316 N, 95.854 E -- Curps 06:41, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The current revision of the USGS page on the earthquake. However, it appears that they've got more than one version of that page with different numbers at slightly different locations on the site. This could be problematic. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 06:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, the location was updated several times. If we go digging back far enough into the history of this page (a few thousand versions, perhaps we might find that 3.307, 95.947 was actually the originally reported hypocenter (never updated on the page you cite), and 3.316, 95.854 is the updated version? -- Curps 06:55, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I found one change of latitude/longitude here in the history. I know I used http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/Quakes/usslav.htm as the source, and it had been updated:, but that doesn't match 3.307, 95.947


 * According to this USGS poster (PDF), it's 3.308, 95.874 and the poster is dated January 11.  That doesn't really match either of the two values.


 * So we've got:
 * 3.316 95.854
 * 3.307 95.947
 * 3.308 95.874
 * Pick one.


 * -- Curps 07:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Casualty Figures
The 220,000 death toll has not been solidly confirmed yet (AFAIK). Please see this article:(http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=658810). The official estimate at this time seems to be 'between 158,000 and 225,000.' -- Xaliqen 12:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) Also see this article: http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2005/01/22/people_of_faith_riven_by_anguish/ -- Xaliqen 02:20, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Estimate: Over 200,000 dead in Indonesia alone
Official estimates have recently been broadcast (eg Radio New Zealand about 8 hours ago) of an Indonesian Government revised estimate. Not back up to the above-discussed "400,000"; but if the new figure becomes accepted, this disaster eclipses the Tangshan earthquake in terms of loss of life, and our current article should increase its upper limit (from "Anywhere from 165,000 to 234,000 people are thought to have died"). Robin Patterson 00:59, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Saw a total of 232,010 in the news recently – is this the most recent official number? Here's a link with a national breakdown: http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/RMOI-6DM949?OpenDocument

Full length?
Would anyone else prefer to have the full length gif on the main article instead? The way the shorter version stops so early (before India is hit) annoys me slightly. Breglatoonaphunk 16:45, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like the longer version. It annoys me not having the image hit anything other than indonesia.  Hello5959us

Terrible: "Tsunami Song"
This information has been floating around from various AIM messages, profiles, etc.

For the last week New York's |Hot 97 has been running a hideously unfunny and offensive skit named the "Tsunami Song," that ridicules the victims of the Tsunami as "chinks" whose children will now be sold into child slavery. It's being played on the station's morning show, hosted by Miss Jones. Listen here now-> http://www.thesilent1.com/USA_For_Indonesia.mp3

Peep the link and spread it around to as many as you can...this is pathetic, insensitive and disgusting.

One of the Jocks in Miss Jones crew is an Asian female and she had verbal beef with her on air about playing this yet it played in rotation anyway.

The lyrics can be found here: http://www.clubzen.com/forum/forum_thread.php?id=216

References: http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000759.html http://www.hiphopmusic.com/archives/000760.html http://www.clubzen.com/forum/forum_thread.php?id=2164

If you like more information, you may ask me on my comment page. Many people are outraged at the song, and it might be worth mentioning somewhere on the Wikipedia. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:38, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The only bad publicity is no publicity. These people are professional trolls, and you're biting. Don't feed the trolls. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 14:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Greetings I want to ask for a major favor. I have an articles which I have been working on with several others about Feeding Babies In Emergencies. It's been done to aid people in the relief work. I need help to put the article online and get them converted to text Wiki-style. Also I need the text converted to as many languages as possible, especially French, Thai, German, Chinese, Dutch, Swedish, Spanish etc. Can anyone help with this project? I have only 3 versions in Doc format for you to start with. http://thanks4supporting.us/downloads/feedingbabies-french.doc http://thanks4supporting.us/downloads/feedingbabies-thai.doc http://thanks4supporting.us/downloads/feedingbabies-spanish.doc

EXCERPT: In emergency situations, such as the ones caused by the December 2004 tsunami, some essential facts regarding infant feeding must be considered: 1. There is no clean drinking water. 2. There is no sterile environment. 3. It is impossible to ensure cleaning and sterilisation of feeding utensils. 4. Babies and young children are already weak and traumatised.

Magnitude clarification
See also /Archive 2.

It appears that there is no official reading on the Richter scale for this earthquake; shouldn't the article say so if this is the case. It says that it was initially reported as 6.8 so I think people should be wondering what it is now. Brianjd 09:42, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)


 * I don't think so- Richter's a red herring. The quake could be measured on Richter, but since the result would be misleading, what's the point? Mark1 04:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Phony pictures
Perhaps it would be wise to add a section on the 'fake' pictures that are circulating the internet. While not all are fake, almost all are not of the tsunami. Snopes has the best list of them I've seen (look in photos->tsunami). Just a quick suggestion. I don't want to add it myself ans be accused of vandalism =/.

tsunami wave?
Am I the only one that finds this usage weird? It's redundant. It's like saying "tidal wave wave". A tsunami is a wave, although an unusually deep wave when it is in the open ocean. Most of the time the phrase "surface wave of the tsunami" should probably be substituted for "tsunami wave". BlankVerse 17:24, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Orders of magnitude?
In Talk:Orders of magnitude (energy):


 * 1.33 × 10^20 J &#8212; energy released by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

In this article:


 * The total energy released ... has been estimated as 2.0 exajoules (2.0×10^18 joules). (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/neic_slav_faq.html)

I don't want to change it. There may be other numbers. -- Toytoy 17:12, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * Both figures originally came from the USGS website (see earlier archived versions of this talk page). The first figure came from a table at a USGS FAQ page, which gave "megatons of TNT" equivalent for earthquakes of various magnitudes, using the general rule that two magnitudes difference = 1000-fold increase in energy.  However, that table has now been removed from that USGS FAQ page.  The second estimate also came from the USGS website, and was specific to this particular earthquake.  So I think we can take it as reliable. -- Curps 18:59, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

FAC link
The FAC notice at the top of the page links to the old nomination discussion from early January, rather than the new one. I have no idea how to fix it. - BanyanTree 02:11, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed now. - BanyanTree 16:33, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

9.3 not 9.0 ?
Could someone more well versed look into this and update if appropriate ?

Its also being reported that its the 2nd largest, not the 4th largest.


 * If this is true, this makes it the 2nd largest quake for about a 100 years. For comparison, heres some other large subduction quakes, though they predate the Richter scale :

1) 1868 Peru - 9.5 Nazca plate and American. 2) 1827 Colombia - 9.7 Gorda plate and American. 3) 1812 Venezuela - 9.6 Carribean plate and American.


 * USGS still says 9.0. I'm seeing the reports of the analysis from Northwestern University, but we should hold off until there's some general agreement about it. -- Cyrius|&#9998;

Last week I attended a conference where a researcher from the Commissariat à l'Énergie Atomique, an expert in tsunami propagation, explained that wave propagation models to fit the measurements from TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason 1 to source earthquake characteristics didn't "fit" very well for magnitude 9 or below, that there was a widespread idea that the earthquake was more powerful than initially thought, and that models were tested with higher magnitudes.

I'm told that one reason for the underestimation is that in the case of extremely powerful earthquakes, some measurements may have some saturation. David.Monniaux 22:18, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The 9.3 figure represents new unconfirmed research. This rates a mention in the opening paragraph and "Quake characteristics" (and has been added), but the official figure of 9.0 should remain for the time being.  The USGS website is still sticking with 9.0 for now, and they or the Japan Meteorological Agency should probably be considered authoritative sources. -- Curps 22:54, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not arguing against this. :-) (Yes, we must be prudent.) Just that it seems that people working in several leading institutions are now inching towards higher magnitudes. We should not anticipate their findings, but I think it likely that the "official" estimates will be increased after some while.


 * Just a side note: in terms of magnitude estimates, there is no such thing as an absolute "authoritative source". It is commonplace that several major institutes give somewhat slightly different estimates of the magnitude of the same earthquake. David.Monniaux 08:05, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The issue at the moment is that the higher estimates seem to be mostly coming from small groups, with no general agreement on how to get at the numbers. It's not that we're waiting for "official" or "authoritative" sources, we're just looking for overall consensus on what the number should be. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 16:04, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * It could be the case that some groups say 9.0 because they are just slow to update their figures, rather than because they find the 9.3 research controversial.
 * "The magnitude 9.3 quake on 26 December occurred further to the north..." BBC, 29 March, 2005
 * "The December one measured at 9.3 by the &#91;Pacific Tsunami Warning Center&#93; and 9.0 by the USGS." CNN, March 29, 2005
 * "Seth Stein and Emile Okal, geologists at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, say that the earthquake's magnitude was 9.3, not 9.0, on the moment magnitude scale&sup1;... References: 1. Stein S. & Okal E. Science preprint at (PDF file) (2005)." Sea bed reveals earthquake scars (Nature, 10 Feb 2005)
 * --Tokek 19:51, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

US Aid figure - changing soon?
Earlier, 68.237.231.184 changed the U.S. Aid figure from 350 million to 950 million. After searching around, I found this Reuters story for today that states that the Bush administration has just proposed a combined 950 million combination military spending and aid program. As the article itself notes, it is not "clear exactly how much of the $950 million package... would be in the form of new aid." Additionally, the new aid must be added to previous aid, so, unless the addition is exactly 600 million, we'll end up with a new figure entirely. - RedWordSmith 22:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami wave height now 100 feet not 50 feet
Could someone review the news reports coming out and edit the main article ?


 * Done. Mark1 04:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is the figure constantly being changed ? Could someone look into this ? The link provided shows 100 feet, but the figure keeps being amended down without a valid link to support

Corrections
May I say that there are many mistakes on this page. I will list a few:


 * The largest recorded earthquake was actually not the Good Friday earthquake but infact the Chilean earthquake which was measured at 9.5 on the Richter Scale.


 * The earthquake measured 9.2 on the richter scale not 9.0 as it has been found to be a lot larger.

-- Erebus555 19:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If you read the article correctly, it says the Good Friday earthquake was the last earthquake larger than 9.0, not the largest.
 * Where is your source for 9.2? Most sources say 9.3.
 * --69.214.227.51 02:55, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Added Earth's ECG.
Added an external link which shows that seismogram in GIF format. That damn earthquake literally kicked the stylus off the tracking paper even on the opposite side of the globe!

-- 195.70.48.242 07:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Larger?
I just heard an NPR report saying that this earthquake is actually a 9.3 making the second biggest in recorded history. Once this is verified by another organization (research group) this should be added to the article. Renaissance Man 22:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, there is already a section for this topic on this talk page, and the figure is already mentioned in the main article twice at least. It is old news &mdash; the research came out on Feb 9, 2005 or earlier. BBC, Science, New Scientist, Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, and apparently NPR are reporting it as a fact, but USGS, afaik, is repoting it as 9.0. Here's a page describing the research from one of the two researchers. I don't see how it needs to be or can be verified because it wasn't an experiment, but a measurment. --Tokek 01:07, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed the article mentioned above states that a magnitude 9.3 earthquake is 3 times larger than a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. This is incorrect. It is twice as large as these are logarithms. The inverse logarithm of 9.3 divided by the inverse logarithm of 9.0 is 1995262315/1000000000 or approximately 2. -- 7 Apr 2005, 24.19.45.139
 * No it's 3 times greater. The scale is basically logarithmic, but subtraction and division is also involved. Just read the link I provided above for details. --Tokek 23:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Housekeeping
Server problems have stopped me from dealing with a few things which I'll deal with soon if no-one else does: Mark1 08:23, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * the impact on... pages for Thailand and Burma need to be updated with the latest figures (http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=13713552).
 * That source also mentions relief workers considering the Somalia figure to be inflated, so we may want to adjust our Somalian confirmed figure.
 * The total of 217,000 in the source (which I've also seen elsewhere recently) is substantially larger than our confirmed, and substantially smaller than our confirmed+missing. I don't know how to reconcile them.