![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I gues this is not the right way but after yesterdays quake I have already seen people mentioning the wrath of god because the first quake was 1 day after christmas and the second big one one day after easter. What are the chances of such events happening on these days? (and off course also the quake on boxing day 2003 in Bam Iran) Thanks 82.168.57.168 17:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See
[1]. How much can be predicted about the scale of the coming
plague, and what is the time frame for
epidemics of particular
diseases?
‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 16:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are already reports of a Cholera outbreak in Sri Lanka, wich is a serious disease and could couse a lot of (thousands?) deaths. My only source as of yet is a Dutch link (also, written in dutch) [2]. But I'm sure there are more sources about this. If there are no sources to be found, I'm sure someone from Holland would be so kind to translate it :).
The CDC has issued a Tsunami notice for travelers detailing the fun and exciting diseases available to travelers in tsunami-affected areas. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is "Diego Leandro Moscato is my friend, please contact him, he lives in ituzaingo". I guess this may be a potential victim, so I'm putting it on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if a mention of the quakes detection should be mentioned, I live in Flagstaff Arizona, in the USA. I saw on the news a day or two after the quake that the quake itself was actually detected by at least one of the seismic monitoring stations in the area. While this may be unusual, we have a large volcanic field here and studying it is done all the time, it still demonstrates the scale of the quake to be measured something like 12,000 miles away. - JetJon 16:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
-
An earthquake larger than about 6.5 can be detected almost any where in the world with modern seismic instruments and a location that has little ground noise. P waves come first and are pressure waves or longitudnal, just like a sound wave.. S waves are a transverse or shear wave.
Using the Iris Seismic monitor I saw that the farthest the earthquake was detected was 18260 km away at station JTS - Las Juntas de Abangares, Costa Rica a station operated by the Global Seismograph Network (GSN - IRIS/IDA) the P wave arrived at 01:19:32 or about 21 minutes after the earthquake.
Actually there are four types of waves all generated simultaneously. They arrive in following order: first the body waves P waves then S waves, next the surface waves Love waves then Rayleigh waves. See http://wapi.isu.edu/envgeo/EG5_earthqks/eg_mod5.htm. Also see excellent Wikipedia article on Seismic wave.
It seems to me that many of the external links provided are redundant or unnecessary. For example, most of the pages linked under "Background information" contain information that readers ideally should be able to find at the article on tsunamis, and having three directory links really seems like overkill. Most of the blogs linked contain virtually the same information, so including so many doesn't seem particularly helpful to readers trying to locate concise, useful information. There is one blog that apparently contains all videos of the disaster [3], yet we have over a dozen individual videos linked after that. Many of the ongoing news collections contain the same exact information, so perhaps we should select a few that contain the best reporting and link only those. Individual articles might be better off linked within the article as sources.
These are just some examples of what I believe is overload, and ways to improve the problem. I'm uncomfortable making any such edits myself, however, because I'm relatively new to this article and I don't know if this is the preferred method of displaying information in times of crisis. Does anyone else agree that maybe we should try to organize the external links more efficiently? How would you go about doing it? Beginning 22:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I moved Indonesia over India because Indonesia was hit harder than India.
Foreigners were completely banned from Aceh prior to the quake/tsunami. The Indonesian government has been blocking access to Aceh after the quake as well, although I've heard they're being ever so slightly more flexible under enormous pressure since then. It's certainly possible (hopefully) that they will announce in the coming days/weeks that they will be allowing international humanitarian aid organizations into Aceh. They have not done so yet, thus the handful of foreigners allowed in so far have been exceptions to the rule, not a policy change. Ruy Lopez 07:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is the rationale in removing all of the interwiki links? Waerth 10:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think 'Failure to detect the tsunamis' and 'Early warning systems' really need rolling into one. Dan100 13:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Dan100 17:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
-- I think there should be more time looking at the communications breakdown. Several people knew in advanced that there was going to be a tsunami but there was no system for alerting people or way to get the message out.
Just to explain, there were large parts of this article that were better covered at tsunami and tsunami warning systems. Where needed, I've cut the text down and introduced links to those pages. The article is already excessively long as it is. Dan100 22:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please would people note that the PTWC was established in 1949, not 1965 as some people are insisting. The systems established as a result of the 1965 quake was the regional-level Alaska/Hawaii system. Dan100 22:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Dan100 22:21, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
The text below the computer animation already states that. I don't think we need to assume people are so daft they need telling twice. Even if it was needed, tsunami characteristics or similar would be a better place. Dan100 22:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've just put in the part which describes how the tsunami was created as it probably should be there. Dan100 22:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
The low height of the deep-ocean wave isn't a factor in failure the failure to warn people at all (even if it seems to be one at first glance). Either a country or area have the ability to detect tsunamis (via bottom pressure recorders, tide guages etc) and the means to warn the threatened populace at extremely short notice, or they don't. Even if the wave had been 15m high in the deep ocean and every ship had spotted it there'd have been no difference in the outcome - the countries around the Indian Ocean have no systems or procedures for warning and mass-evacuation. Dan100 16:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Should this article be one article, or two, one on the Earthquake, one on the subsequent tsunamis? If it is to be one article, the majority of the article is about the damage caused by the resultant tsunamis, and not on what was directly wrought by the earthquake, so the article should be named: Boxing Day 2004 Indian Ocean tsunamis. 132.205.15.43 01:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Ken, Singapore" is spamming every page with links to http://www.asiantsunami.org/ so he is hardly impartial:
203.120.68.68 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This article was originally created and named (by me, actually) eight hours after the quake. Keith Edkins independently created 2004 Sumatra Earthquake only six minutes later, but he redirected it to my article eight minutes after that.
At that time, the known death toll was in the hundreds and expected to reach the thousands. This was comparable to the Great Chilean Earthquake of 1960 in terms of casualties from earthquake + tsunami, and it was the biggest earthquake on Earth in 40 years, so at the time the earthquake was the story. I had almost picked a name involving Sumatra or Indonesia, but even then there were reports about Phuket and other places being hit, so I wanted to broaden the scope.
We should probably wait to see if the world settles on a common name for this event and change it then, because there are a lot of links to rename. If the new name includes "tsunami", I would prefer "Indian Ocean tsunami disaster" rather than "Asian tsunami disaster" being it's more unique -- the last major tsunami in the Indian Ocean was from Krakatoa in 1883, while there are lots of tsunamis in the Pacific, and one of them could yet cause an Asian disaster if it occurs close to shore and there is no time for residents to evacuate despite tsunami warning systems in place. And also obviously, "Indian Ocean" is more inclusive than "Asian", since there was loss of life in Africa too.
-- Curps 01:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Sri Lanka casualty figures are, obvoiusly, inaccurate. Someone should change them. Comrade Tassadar 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current SL figures include both government and Tiger stats. Mark 1 04:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is irrelevant now - someone vandalised it to say something else, not even numbers. Comrade Tassadar 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here are some of your vandals:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2994204
I was quite some time amazed by the numbers of tghe power, untill I found it so unlikely I started to do a bit of research on the internet for my own. As stated by the USGS the energy was 20X10^17 Joules, and not 2.5X10^20 which is a difference of a factor 125. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/neic_slav_faq.html The energy in TNT seems to be a wrong calculation too. One kilo TNT is 4,184X10^9 joule. This would lead to 60,000 megatons of TNT, not to 32,000. I do not have time to check all other calculations, so I am afraid I will have to delete them because they seem to be to unreliable. I do think it is interesting to have them, so if anybody feels like searching and calculating please feel submit the right energy values expressed in:
Assuming the USGS figure is correct (2 X 10^18 Joules) that gives an energy equivalent to roughly 500
Megatons (1 MT = 4.18 X 10^15 J). Which is 10 times bigger than the largest thermonuclear bomb ever detonated (Soviet test Oct 1961). Big, but certainly not 32,000 MT.
Also E=MC^2 gives a mass equivalent of 23 grams which is a mere 0.8 oz.
There's been a whole lot of stuff deleted and sundry silly changes - trouble is, the Wiki isn't working well at the moment, so I can't find what's missing easily for restoration. It needs a fairly major check-over, which should I think be done by a moderator with a temporary hold on all other edits until it is done - MPF 16:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Official count stopped due to extreme chaos in affected areas."
please define chaos, and please define EXTREME chaos. does this meet looting? human violence? fighting? gun fire? what exactly. Kingturtle 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but somebody blanked the page.
Never mind, thanks Shmuel. Dralwik 01:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is more concise now with appropriate links to drill down further. Only that I really miss the the summary table of casualties because it gives a bird view of the impact the tsunami to each affected countries/nations.
Note: Tsunamis have very low height while travelling over deep ocean, and ocean-going vessels in their path do not usually notice them. High waves only occur when shallow water is reached.
How can anybody not see how that is a load of crap? The earthquake is on the bottom of the ocean while there is a slight effect on the top of the ocean. The tsunami is really moving through the entire height of the water. The reason it seems to have a "very low height" is because the water is so deep. Subsequently added signature: Brian j d 09:02, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Has anyone seen data on the period of the waves? In some pictures it looks like the wave came in and went back out rather quickly, and in others it looked like it had come in like a river for a very long time. This would be good information in the Characteristics of the Tsunami section if anyone has good data. Obviously it could be different from place to place.
As i understand it, the Australasian plate has been pushed down by the European plate. Hasnt this effectively shifted the stress and pressure to say the Lake Toba area, making the risk of eurption highly likely ?
Any scientists looking into this, and able to give comments ?
I believe it was Cantus that removed the country specific info into Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. While I can see the reason behind this I can't help but think that such information was better incorporated in this article. It is now quite difficult to get to the "Impact on..." articles as people now have to go through the "Countries affected..." article to get to them. Should it be re-incorporated or should another way of linking these articles be arranged? violet/riga (t) 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This Tilly Smith story has a primary source that is fairly dubious. The UK "Sun". . . also, no mention of "bobbing boats" in cited article. I can't edit the page at the moment, something to do with my IP. Zosodada 01:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This was 5 days ago and it still stands. I move to replace it with the UN estimate. -- Zosodada 02:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it feasable to fast-track a Wikireader on this subject (including edited tsiunami and earthquake articles, as well as pages related to this disaster) for sale. Something around 50% of profits could be donated to an agreed charity. For greatest effect this would need to be done as soon as possible. There is the option of by-passing publishers by allowing trusted users to download PDFs, print well and sell in their locales? This user would then send raised money to the Wikimedia foundation. Anyone got any ideas? -- Oldak Quill 20:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the current article title be changed to "2004 Asian Tsunami" ... which is short & simple.
The term "AsianTsunami" has upto 50 hits in Yahoo and "Asian Tsunami" has 1,030,000 hits. Goggles seems to be joining-in too with "AsianTsunami" at 135 hits & "Asian Tsunami" with 3,350,000 hits.
Yes, the Earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean BUT it was the Asian Tsunami that affected a pan-asian area, news agencies and the media calls it the "Asian Tsunami Disaster" to term the event ... it is easier as a reference term than your "2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake that caused massive tsunamis that effected many asian counties ..." (mouth-full)
Change the title ... please.
The tsunami was the cause of the massive deaths among the nations, not the earthquake per say ... and lots of people are calling it so NOT the Indian Ocean Tsunami or Earthquake !!!
Thank you.
203.120.68.68 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) stop spamming every single article related to this topic with an external link to http://www.asiantsunami.org/
Hi Curps,
I realised now why your name pops up every now and then at the "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" ... you are the initiator. (congrats !)
I am the one that suggested the "2004 Asian Tsunami" out of good intentions to benefit the Wiki-community as this is the term frequently used by the media ... nobody except your article refers to the disaster as "Indian Ocean earthquake" as it did not cause the death tolls, it was the tsunami that killed and the world is responding to the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami, not the Indian Ocean earthquake.
Now, (let's settle some scores) ... you (Curps) have deliberately deleted my comments on the proposal of using "2004 Asian Tsunami" at "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" article discussion site. This action is not only distasteful, it is unethical.
The deleted portions can be found at ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163418
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=next&oldid=9163418
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163447
Text that were deleted were ;
"The term "AsianTsunami" has upto 50 hits in Yahoo and "Asian Tsunami" has 1,030,000 hits. Goggles seems to be joining-in too with "AsianTsunami" at 135 hits & "Asian Tsunami" with 3,350,000 hits."
"Change the title ... please."
"The tsunami was the cause of the massive deaths among the nations, not the earthquake per say ... and lots of people are calling it so NOT the Indian Ocean Tsunami or Earthquake !!!"
My appreciation to you Curps on the maintenance for the article page but I hope you allow free speech & friendly suggestions as much as it is possible.
[User: kenkam (talk)] 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This would make more sense, as the tsunami hit some of Eastern Africa as well as Asia and all the damage was caused by the tsunami rather than the earthquate itself, jguk 19:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I gues this is not the right way but after yesterdays quake I have already seen people mentioning the wrath of god because the first quake was 1 day after christmas and the second big one one day after easter. What are the chances of such events happening on these days? (and off course also the quake on boxing day 2003 in Bam Iran) Thanks 82.168.57.168 17:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
See
[1]. How much can be predicted about the scale of the coming
plague, and what is the time frame for
epidemics of particular
diseases?
‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ 16:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
There are already reports of a Cholera outbreak in Sri Lanka, wich is a serious disease and could couse a lot of (thousands?) deaths. My only source as of yet is a Dutch link (also, written in dutch) [2]. But I'm sure there are more sources about this. If there are no sources to be found, I'm sure someone from Holland would be so kind to translate it :).
The CDC has issued a Tsunami notice for travelers detailing the fun and exciting diseases available to travelers in tsunami-affected areas. -- Cyrius| ✎ 06:07, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is "Diego Leandro Moscato is my friend, please contact him, he lives in ituzaingo". I guess this may be a potential victim, so I'm putting it on the talk page. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:58, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I wonder if a mention of the quakes detection should be mentioned, I live in Flagstaff Arizona, in the USA. I saw on the news a day or two after the quake that the quake itself was actually detected by at least one of the seismic monitoring stations in the area. While this may be unusual, we have a large volcanic field here and studying it is done all the time, it still demonstrates the scale of the quake to be measured something like 12,000 miles away. - JetJon 16:36, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
-
An earthquake larger than about 6.5 can be detected almost any where in the world with modern seismic instruments and a location that has little ground noise. P waves come first and are pressure waves or longitudnal, just like a sound wave.. S waves are a transverse or shear wave.
Using the Iris Seismic monitor I saw that the farthest the earthquake was detected was 18260 km away at station JTS - Las Juntas de Abangares, Costa Rica a station operated by the Global Seismograph Network (GSN - IRIS/IDA) the P wave arrived at 01:19:32 or about 21 minutes after the earthquake.
Actually there are four types of waves all generated simultaneously. They arrive in following order: first the body waves P waves then S waves, next the surface waves Love waves then Rayleigh waves. See http://wapi.isu.edu/envgeo/EG5_earthqks/eg_mod5.htm. Also see excellent Wikipedia article on Seismic wave.
It seems to me that many of the external links provided are redundant or unnecessary. For example, most of the pages linked under "Background information" contain information that readers ideally should be able to find at the article on tsunamis, and having three directory links really seems like overkill. Most of the blogs linked contain virtually the same information, so including so many doesn't seem particularly helpful to readers trying to locate concise, useful information. There is one blog that apparently contains all videos of the disaster [3], yet we have over a dozen individual videos linked after that. Many of the ongoing news collections contain the same exact information, so perhaps we should select a few that contain the best reporting and link only those. Individual articles might be better off linked within the article as sources.
These are just some examples of what I believe is overload, and ways to improve the problem. I'm uncomfortable making any such edits myself, however, because I'm relatively new to this article and I don't know if this is the preferred method of displaying information in times of crisis. Does anyone else agree that maybe we should try to organize the external links more efficiently? How would you go about doing it? Beginning 22:57, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I moved Indonesia over India because Indonesia was hit harder than India.
Foreigners were completely banned from Aceh prior to the quake/tsunami. The Indonesian government has been blocking access to Aceh after the quake as well, although I've heard they're being ever so slightly more flexible under enormous pressure since then. It's certainly possible (hopefully) that they will announce in the coming days/weeks that they will be allowing international humanitarian aid organizations into Aceh. They have not done so yet, thus the handful of foreigners allowed in so far have been exceptions to the rule, not a policy change. Ruy Lopez 07:05, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
What is the rationale in removing all of the interwiki links? Waerth 10:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think 'Failure to detect the tsunamis' and 'Early warning systems' really need rolling into one. Dan100 13:50, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Done. Dan100 17:44, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
-- I think there should be more time looking at the communications breakdown. Several people knew in advanced that there was going to be a tsunami but there was no system for alerting people or way to get the message out.
Just to explain, there were large parts of this article that were better covered at tsunami and tsunami warning systems. Where needed, I've cut the text down and introduced links to those pages. The article is already excessively long as it is. Dan100 22:06, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please would people note that the PTWC was established in 1949, not 1965 as some people are insisting. The systems established as a result of the 1965 quake was the regional-level Alaska/Hawaii system. Dan100 22:05, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
Dan100 22:21, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
The text below the computer animation already states that. I don't think we need to assume people are so daft they need telling twice. Even if it was needed, tsunami characteristics or similar would be a better place. Dan100 22:48, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
I've just put in the part which describes how the tsunami was created as it probably should be there. Dan100 22:52, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
The low height of the deep-ocean wave isn't a factor in failure the failure to warn people at all (even if it seems to be one at first glance). Either a country or area have the ability to detect tsunamis (via bottom pressure recorders, tide guages etc) and the means to warn the threatened populace at extremely short notice, or they don't. Even if the wave had been 15m high in the deep ocean and every ship had spotted it there'd have been no difference in the outcome - the countries around the Indian Ocean have no systems or procedures for warning and mass-evacuation. Dan100 16:33, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
Should this article be one article, or two, one on the Earthquake, one on the subsequent tsunamis? If it is to be one article, the majority of the article is about the damage caused by the resultant tsunamis, and not on what was directly wrought by the earthquake, so the article should be named: Boxing Day 2004 Indian Ocean tsunamis. 132.205.15.43 01:37, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, "Ken, Singapore" is spamming every page with links to http://www.asiantsunami.org/ so he is hardly impartial:
203.120.68.68 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
This article was originally created and named (by me, actually) eight hours after the quake. Keith Edkins independently created 2004 Sumatra Earthquake only six minutes later, but he redirected it to my article eight minutes after that.
At that time, the known death toll was in the hundreds and expected to reach the thousands. This was comparable to the Great Chilean Earthquake of 1960 in terms of casualties from earthquake + tsunami, and it was the biggest earthquake on Earth in 40 years, so at the time the earthquake was the story. I had almost picked a name involving Sumatra or Indonesia, but even then there were reports about Phuket and other places being hit, so I wanted to broaden the scope.
We should probably wait to see if the world settles on a common name for this event and change it then, because there are a lot of links to rename. If the new name includes "tsunami", I would prefer "Indian Ocean tsunami disaster" rather than "Asian tsunami disaster" being it's more unique -- the last major tsunami in the Indian Ocean was from Krakatoa in 1883, while there are lots of tsunamis in the Pacific, and one of them could yet cause an Asian disaster if it occurs close to shore and there is no time for residents to evacuate despite tsunami warning systems in place. And also obviously, "Indian Ocean" is more inclusive than "Asian", since there was loss of life in Africa too.
-- Curps 01:42, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The Sri Lanka casualty figures are, obvoiusly, inaccurate. Someone should change them. Comrade Tassadar 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Current SL figures include both government and Tiger stats. Mark 1 04:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This is irrelevant now - someone vandalised it to say something else, not even numbers. Comrade Tassadar 02:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Here are some of your vandals:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2994204
I was quite some time amazed by the numbers of tghe power, untill I found it so unlikely I started to do a bit of research on the internet for my own. As stated by the USGS the energy was 20X10^17 Joules, and not 2.5X10^20 which is a difference of a factor 125. http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/neic_slav_faq.html The energy in TNT seems to be a wrong calculation too. One kilo TNT is 4,184X10^9 joule. This would lead to 60,000 megatons of TNT, not to 32,000. I do not have time to check all other calculations, so I am afraid I will have to delete them because they seem to be to unreliable. I do think it is interesting to have them, so if anybody feels like searching and calculating please feel submit the right energy values expressed in:
Assuming the USGS figure is correct (2 X 10^18 Joules) that gives an energy equivalent to roughly 500
Megatons (1 MT = 4.18 X 10^15 J). Which is 10 times bigger than the largest thermonuclear bomb ever detonated (Soviet test Oct 1961). Big, but certainly not 32,000 MT.
Also E=MC^2 gives a mass equivalent of 23 grams which is a mere 0.8 oz.
There's been a whole lot of stuff deleted and sundry silly changes - trouble is, the Wiki isn't working well at the moment, so I can't find what's missing easily for restoration. It needs a fairly major check-over, which should I think be done by a moderator with a temporary hold on all other edits until it is done - MPF 16:02, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Official count stopped due to extreme chaos in affected areas."
please define chaos, and please define EXTREME chaos. does this meet looting? human violence? fighting? gun fire? what exactly. Kingturtle 22:08, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but somebody blanked the page.
Never mind, thanks Shmuel. Dralwik 01:52, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It is more concise now with appropriate links to drill down further. Only that I really miss the the summary table of casualties because it gives a bird view of the impact the tsunami to each affected countries/nations.
Note: Tsunamis have very low height while travelling over deep ocean, and ocean-going vessels in their path do not usually notice them. High waves only occur when shallow water is reached.
How can anybody not see how that is a load of crap? The earthquake is on the bottom of the ocean while there is a slight effect on the top of the ocean. The tsunami is really moving through the entire height of the water. The reason it seems to have a "very low height" is because the water is so deep. Subsequently added signature: Brian j d 09:02, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)
Has anyone seen data on the period of the waves? In some pictures it looks like the wave came in and went back out rather quickly, and in others it looked like it had come in like a river for a very long time. This would be good information in the Characteristics of the Tsunami section if anyone has good data. Obviously it could be different from place to place.
As i understand it, the Australasian plate has been pushed down by the European plate. Hasnt this effectively shifted the stress and pressure to say the Lake Toba area, making the risk of eurption highly likely ?
Any scientists looking into this, and able to give comments ?
I believe it was Cantus that removed the country specific info into Countries affected by the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. While I can see the reason behind this I can't help but think that such information was better incorporated in this article. It is now quite difficult to get to the "Impact on..." articles as people now have to go through the "Countries affected..." article to get to them. Should it be re-incorporated or should another way of linking these articles be arranged? violet/riga (t) 18:50, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This Tilly Smith story has a primary source that is fairly dubious. The UK "Sun". . . also, no mention of "bobbing boats" in cited article. I can't edit the page at the moment, something to do with my IP. Zosodada 01:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This was 5 days ago and it still stands. I move to replace it with the UN estimate. -- Zosodada 02:24, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is it feasable to fast-track a Wikireader on this subject (including edited tsiunami and earthquake articles, as well as pages related to this disaster) for sale. Something around 50% of profits could be donated to an agreed charity. For greatest effect this would need to be done as soon as possible. There is the option of by-passing publishers by allowing trusted users to download PDFs, print well and sell in their locales? This user would then send raised money to the Wikimedia foundation. Anyone got any ideas? -- Oldak Quill 20:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I would like to propose that the current article title be changed to "2004 Asian Tsunami" ... which is short & simple.
The term "AsianTsunami" has upto 50 hits in Yahoo and "Asian Tsunami" has 1,030,000 hits. Goggles seems to be joining-in too with "AsianTsunami" at 135 hits & "Asian Tsunami" with 3,350,000 hits.
Yes, the Earthquake happened in the Indian Ocean BUT it was the Asian Tsunami that affected a pan-asian area, news agencies and the media calls it the "Asian Tsunami Disaster" to term the event ... it is easier as a reference term than your "2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake that caused massive tsunamis that effected many asian counties ..." (mouth-full)
Change the title ... please.
The tsunami was the cause of the massive deaths among the nations, not the earthquake per say ... and lots of people are calling it so NOT the Indian Ocean Tsunami or Earthquake !!!
Thank you.
203.120.68.68 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) stop spamming every single article related to this topic with an external link to http://www.asiantsunami.org/
Hi Curps,
I realised now why your name pops up every now and then at the "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" ... you are the initiator. (congrats !)
I am the one that suggested the "2004 Asian Tsunami" out of good intentions to benefit the Wiki-community as this is the term frequently used by the media ... nobody except your article refers to the disaster as "Indian Ocean earthquake" as it did not cause the death tolls, it was the tsunami that killed and the world is responding to the aftermath of the Asian Tsunami, not the Indian Ocean earthquake.
Now, (let's settle some scores) ... you (Curps) have deliberately deleted my comments on the proposal of using "2004 Asian Tsunami" at "2004 Indian Ocean earthquake" article discussion site. This action is not only distasteful, it is unethical.
The deleted portions can be found at ;
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163418
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=next&oldid=9163418
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:2004_Indian_Ocean_earthquake&diff=prev&oldid=9163447
Text that were deleted were ;
"The term "AsianTsunami" has upto 50 hits in Yahoo and "Asian Tsunami" has 1,030,000 hits. Goggles seems to be joining-in too with "AsianTsunami" at 135 hits & "Asian Tsunami" with 3,350,000 hits."
"Change the title ... please."
"The tsunami was the cause of the massive deaths among the nations, not the earthquake per say ... and lots of people are calling it so NOT the Indian Ocean Tsunami or Earthquake !!!"
My appreciation to you Curps on the maintenance for the article page but I hope you allow free speech & friendly suggestions as much as it is possible.
[User: kenkam (talk)] 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This would make more sense, as the tsunami hit some of Eastern Africa as well as Asia and all the damage was caused by the tsunami rather than the earthquate itself, jguk 19:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)