Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami/Archive 7

message: 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake does not properly describe the event. 
#There were over 1,000 earthquakes in the Indian Ocean in 2004
#The earthquake itself did little damage - it was the tsunami that did most of the damage.
The NOAA calls it the Indian Ocean Tsunami of 26 December, 2004
I propose 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami...there was only one tsunami in the Indian Ocean in 2004.
But I am open to any suggestions. Kingturtle 03:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure there were many other quakes in northern California in 1906, but does that mean we change the name of 1906 San Francisco earthquake? Furthermore, as I've mentioned before, Hurricane Jeanne killed 3000 people in Haiti - but not directly. It caused high rains (somewhat of a glancing blow) that caused mudslides. Do we attribute these deaths to the mudslides, or the hurricane? The earthquake is the singular causative event. Without it, the tsunami would not have happened. The NOAA may call it "Indian Ocean Tsunami of 26 December, 2004" because they are concerned with the tsunami, not the earthquake; the earthquake is the concern of the USGS, which calls this event "Magnitude 9.0 OFF THE WEST COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATRA". Also, I don't know if this has been pointed out anywhere, but the USGS page for incident USSLAV (the quake we're discussing here) links to us as an educational link. --Golbez 07:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm persuaded by the hurricane analogy that a change is unnecessary.   I wouldn't cry if the name was changed to "earthquake and tsunami", but I don't think it would help either. Mark1 08:17, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I think you need to change it. It will go down in history as a tsunami not an earthquake --BozMo|talk 19:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change necessary 

message: The picture :Image:2004-tsunami.jpg is due up for Picture of the Day on Sunday. Since people editing here probably know more about the subject than most, it would be good if someone could check and correct the associated caption at Wikipedia:Picture of the day/September 25, 2005. -- Solipsist 07:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pic of the day 

message: In the section relating casualties, it is mentioned that a 1703 tsunami claimed 100,000 lives when it struck Awa, Japan.  First, a historical tsunami that hit Awa listed at Tsunami#Other_historical_tsunamis for 1700 but there is no mention of a 1703 event; were there two events or is one of the two dates incorrect?  Second, Awa has several Japanese geographical meanings and it would be useful if someone could disambiguate this term in this article.  Thanks for your help. Courtland 01:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit of research and put my findings, and further questions, at Talk:Tsunami#Awa.  Cheers, BanyanTree 01:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  disambiguation request: "Awa" and fact check 

message: I'm girding myself up for a run through this article, converting inline references to footnotes and checking that everything is properly referenced.  Before I start, would anyone for any reason rather I didn't?  Speak now or forever hold your peace... Mark1 22:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Great Referencing Clean-up 

message: The article mentions how one girl who had studied Tsunamis recognised the warning signs. I distinctly remember having seen people who survived who mentioned how they had recognised the warning signs and evacuated. Some of these people did not appear to make any effort to warn others. Regardless, anyone willing to track those some references so we can add a bit info on this (people, I expect largely tourists who did recognise the warning signs and evacuated)? Nil Einne 16:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning signs 

message: Is this sentence really necessary? 
"A recent documentary on the Discovery Channel said the scene of the 2004 tsunami was "even worse than Hurricane Katrina", which occured about 8 months after the tsunami."
Not to belittle the Katrina tragedy, but the Tsunami tragedy was orders of magnitude bigger than Katrina by any scale. The sentence (as well as the "observation" by Discovery Channel) seems totally superfluous.
:It's ludicrous.  I've removed it. Mark1 09:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tsunami and Katrina 

message: The first citation is [2], not [1]. Can someone check what is causing this to happen? - Mailer Diablo 14:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've transferred the links into footnote citations, now I'll need a kind soul to do the reorganisation per WP:CITE...Thanks! - Mailer Diablo 14:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange Citation 

message: Can I suggest that the footnotes go on a separate page? They make it very long for a browser
--BozMotalk 15:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid they can't; they need to be on the same page as the footnote call. Mark1 15:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then the whole article needs breaking up. It is too long --BozMotalk 09:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes

message: Continuing ideas discussed in the above discussion, I agree that the article is long and and deals with multiple subjects. I propose breaking up this article into 3
*2004 Indian Ocean earthquake
*2004 Global tsunami
*Impacts of 2004 global tsunami
Any ideas / comments / suggestions? --Asbl 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what you mean by 'breaking up'.  I see no reason not to use the usual Wikipedia summary style: on this page summarise theearthquake, the tsunami, and the response and consequences, then have more more detailed articles on each of these.  I think that it's important to have once central place where readers can get an overview of the whole thing (hopefully in a more digestible form than currently). Markyour words 01:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Breaking up the article

message: I'd really like to see a section listing the amount of money each country donated. Chaldean 01:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humanitarian response to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake?  Markyour words 01:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World Aid

message: Why is the top picture being deleted repeatedly? There is no edit summary for the removal and it appears as though the picture isn't copyrighted. Is there something I am missing? In the meantime, I'm re-adding the picture. joturner 02:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Top Picture 

message: Is it really appropriate to have a mention of a theory that India caused the tsunami with a nuke? I see thtis as completely off topic, and has nothing to do in an article like this. I would like some response, and actually feel like removing it, which I just did Jordskjelv 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other effects 

message: I just cleaned up the article, primarily cleaning up the references and organizing them using the Wikipedia:Footnotes format. Please use this format when adding references and material to the article. I also removed a lot of the linkspam as well. Dr. Cash 02:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article cleanup

message: The first paragraph in 'Other Effects' reads:
"Many health professionals and aid workers have reported widespread psychological trauma associated with the tsunami. Traditional beliefs in many of the affected regions state that a relative of the family must bury the body of the dead. Some psychologists interpret this as evidence of psychological trauma." 
I was just wondering what that meant. I'm wondering why 'traditional beliefs' would be interpreted as evidence of psychological trauma?
Wilson Harron 14:16, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification: Other Effects 

message: at the end of the 'Damage and Casualties' section
:It was reverted – Gurch 16:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what's this 'i like chicken and ur mom' line?