Talk:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami

proud (?) to be the first one to type something on this discussion page.

• ?What about Bangladesh? I cant read anything?

uncovered ( not yet been ) story by TV and RADIO news – 28 December 2004. from: [e-mail]. 26 DECEMBER 2004 SUMATRA TSUNAMI / HINDIA OCEAN EARTHQUAKE. FURY WAVING VERY HORRIBLE AND BIG WATER OCEAN, KILLED AND SANKED A THOUSANDS OF CHILDRENS, PARENTS AND POOR FISHERMANS IN NIAS, SINABANG ISLANDS, NEIGHBOR SMALL ISLES AND HINDIA OCEAN COAST IN ACEH & NORTH SUMATRA PROVINCES - INDONESIA. THEY NEED YOUR HELPS, THEY LOOSE EVERY THINGS, THEIR BABIES, FATHERS, MOTHERS, CLOTHS, FOODS, HOUSES, KITCHEN, CANOES & FISHING BOATS. SEND YOUR ANY ASSIST RELIEVE DIRECT TO THE VICTIMS VIA YOUR EMBASSIES IN INDONESIA AND YOUR CONSULATE IN MEDAN. PLEASE SEND INFO TO: SUMATRA TSUNAMI INTERNATIONAL CARE MONITOR contact me: [e-mail]. THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO: JIMMY WIKIPEDIA PRESIDENT AND WIKIPEDIA FOUNDATION

HOLY SH*T! hard to imagine this really happened. i live quite close to sumatra, but i didn't feel any tremors whatsoever. my sympathies to all those people affected.

I've heard of people rushing out from buildings here in Penang when the quake struck. I wasn't awake at that time. Condolences to the families of the victims. --Andylkl 11:42, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, very bad. Here in Chennai people started vacate their residence and are rushing towards safe places. - Sridhar 13:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Radio Australia [1] claims that the vibrations were felt as far as London. Is that true? Jam2k 14:03, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

didn't feel anything here in london! -sars

According to TV reports, it was felt in Lisbon, Portugal (www.meteo.pt)

oh really? didn't feel a thing here in kuala lumpur though. :)

'Felt' in London, etc., by seismological recording instruments, not by people. - MPF 14:54, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi there, I changed the link from "magnitude" to "Moment magnitude scale". It was always linking to that page. I did this to highlight that the Richter scale is not technically used, because it saturates at greater than 8.3-8.6.

-- It is enough to say magnitude though. Magnitude alone does not specify that the ricter scale is used. However, Moment Mag is always used for large world wide earthquakes. In modern seismology ricter scale is almost never used it is only applicable to one style of seismometer (torsion wood anderson) and a specific type fault..

Impact on Earth rotation

Good day. Rumor has it the planet's rotation was affected slightly. Any confirmation? 24.107.227.12 18:13, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yep, see here [2]. --Andylkl 18:25, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Since 600 mi (1000 km) of subduction fault are said to have slipped during the quake, one can only assume that untold trillions of tons of crustal rock shifted position very abruptly. Sounds like that would be enough to cause some "small" change to the center of mass of the Earth, which would indeed affect how the planet rotates.

See [3]. Individual earthquakes usually don't have a significant effect on rotation, but quakes on the scale of the Great Chilean Earthquake or the Good Friday Earthquake produce detectable changes in gravity. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 22:03, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Burma is now known as Myanmar

Burma is not correct name. --Kosudo CONMEBOL 18:53, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"It will always be Burma to me!" (OK. I'll update the image.) Bogdan | Talk 19:06, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. Bogdan | Talk 19:12, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I hate to be difficult, but "Burma" is the correct English name of the country known in Burmese as Myanmar, just as "Germany" is the correct English name of the country known in German in Deutschland. The fact that an unelected military regime chooses to call it Myanmar in English doesn't alter that. Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of the Burmese nation, calls it Burma. Adam 23:38, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From the Burma article, the name change is not universally recognized. I would think the prudent solution would be the one I've seen on most maps: Write it as "Myanmar," as they call themselves, and put "Burma" in parentheses after it, i.e. "Myanmar (Burma)". Just calling it Burma would be like, in 1812, the United States appearing on British maps as "The Royal Colonies of North America" or something to that effect, but Burma is the more common name, so it should be listed for convinience.

--cuiusquemodi 01:47, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is a false analogy, for reasons made clear in my comments above. And since when do we call countries in English by the "name they call themselves"? Do we call Germany Deutschland? India Bharat? China Chung-guo? Egypt al-Misr? Greece Ellas? Adam 02:08, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The official name of the country formerly known as Burma is now Myanmar. There is no disputing this. Myanmar is the name that the current government uses (regardless of your opinion of the current government) and that is the name used by the United Nations [4]. Even if all Wikipedians agree with the US government that Aung San Suu Kyi should be in power and not under house arrest, her opinion is not really relevant to the official name of the country as used in Wikipedia. By the way, the US government calls it "Burma (Myanmar)", [5] but again, Wikipedia shouldn't reflect the US State Department POV. It should reflect the name used by the country's government and the United Nations, which is the most NPOV source possible. --Kosudo CONMEBOL 02:49, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of false analogies, those are examples of very entrenched alien or traditional designations, not modern situations in which the local government officially changed the name. In those events we usually go along, like with "Zimbabwe" (Rhodesia), "Democratic Republic of Congo" (Zaire), "Belarus" (Byelorussia), "Malaysia" (Malaya), "Tanzania" (Tanganyika & Zanzibar), "Thailand" (Siam) and the city name of "Istanbul" (Constantinople)... all of which I believe you'll find used today by Washington, London, Ottawa, Canberra, etc. (I mean, gee, most U.S. residents call the United Kingdom "England"; does that mean we should use that term instead here on Wikipedia?) If your real objection is that the government-in-fact of the country didn't have the legitimacy to change it, then focus on that, because it stands a chance of actually being compelling. But you'll still have to get over the hurdle that there are plenty of non-democratic governments out there, and the international community still recognises them. Like the UN does with Myanmar's. Tverbeek 03:14, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Magnitude clarification

What magnitude scales are being used in the article? Particularly reffering to this paragraph:

"The quake was initially reported at magnitude 6.8 in the Richter scale but this was soon updated to 8.5 and then 8.9 on the moment magnitude scale. The largest recorded earthquake was the Great Chilean Earthquake of 1960, at magnitude 9.5."

It the 8.9 magnitude only for the moment magnitude scale? On all news sites that I've seen the scale used was the Richter scale. Is there a difference between 8.9 on the Richter scale and 8.9 on the moment magnitude scale? Also, which scale does the Chilean quake use?

The 9.5 on the Chilean quake is on the moment magnitude scale, as is the 8.9 for this one.

The Richter scale falls down for larger earthquakes, producing a number that does not relate well to the actual earthquake size. The moment scale does not have this flaw. Earthquake scales are scaled such that they correspond to the Richter scale in the Richter scale's accurate range.

The media is probably saying "Richter scale" because it's more widely known. The USGS Earthquake Magnitude Policy has some discussion of all of this. -- Cyrius|✎

-- I work for a large seismic network and our media always says we use the ricter scale even though our lab does not use it. For an earthquake this large the only Magnitude scale that will work is the Moment (Mw) Mag.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/recenteqsww/glossary.htm#magnitude --

The Magnitude refers to an amount of energy released by an earthquake and really has nothing to do with felt intensity, so if the scale is applicable to the situation which one you use should not matter. With all of this being said, the ricter scale equates energy released by using a table to look up ground displacemnt at a distance.

-- If the 9.0 Indian Ocean Earthquake "was the largest earthquake in the world since the 9.2-magnitude Good Friday Earthquake", have the authors confused Richter with Moment Mag in the same sentence? If so, this should be clarified.--Westendgirl 18:32, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good job

It's been ... at this point, almost exactly (if my time zone converstion is dead on) 26 hours since the earthquake struck, and we have a very nice article with local aspects, historical reference (The Bam earthquake, in particular) and already an illustration made by a user, not made by a news organization. I have got to say, I am god damned proud to be a wikipedian at this moment, if this is what y'all can come up with in 26 hours. --Golbez 03:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Bear in mind that somebody working for a newspaper would have to produce something like this - with photographs and interviews - in much less than twenty-six hours. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:46, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While being paid for it, with professional tools at their disposal. --Golbez 11:02, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Aid call

Good work on that section. I remember reading somewhere that the government of Pakistan is sending Rupees 10 million in aid on Monday, mostly in the form of tents, medicines and the like.

Name?

The USGS seems to be calling this the "Nicobar Islands Earthquake of 2004". Should this be mentioned anywhere? --Golbez 04:37, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a link? The biggest aftershock (7.3) was in the Nicobar Islands, but not the big 9.0 quake itself. -- Curps 04:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See this. The name "Nicobar Islands Earthquake of 16 December 2004" is on the map a little down the page. (I would not want to be on the island just south of the star.) Googling "Nicobar Islands Earthquake" turns up one page, to a 7.9 magnitude in 1881. No hits on Google News. I would wait to see if this becomes the "geologist name" for the earthquake or gets picked up by the media before putting it in the article. BanyanTree 05:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is amazing that you have so much about the earthquake and tsumanis on this site so quickly. I've been trying to find exactly where the epicentre was, and can't. (The Myanmar discussion is a bit pedantic, isn't it?)

BBC World has been calling it the Bay of Bengal earthquake. [maestro] 05:27, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's not pedantic to the people of Burma, let me assure you. When the regime there is overthrown they will remember who their friends were. And the epicentre was not in the Bay of Bengal. Adam 05:56, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I rather doubt that Wikipedia or any of its editors will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes, or that the use of "Myanmar" on a map of this disaster is anywhere near the top of the Burmese people's concerns right now. By all means, do advocate for regime change... but not here; Wikipedia is supposed to remain neutral. Tverbeek 14:11, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We can always move the page later once a name settles in. The other languages seem to be largely using similar names, and it seems to be well-linked from places where people would be looking for it. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sumatra moved 100 feet?

Drudge is reporting that the ENTIRE ISLAND of Sumatra has moved 100 feet to the southwest. www.drudgereport.com , can this be true. I can't find supporting documentation anywhere. Has anybody else found the documentation for this. if it's true that's an entire island a little larger than California moving 1/3 of a US football field, WOW!!!

Sounds like BS.

The US National Earthquake Information Center is cited by the NYT as saying that hundreds of miles of seabed shot 50 feet upward. This is the sort of motion that causes tsunami. This is also consistent with the subduction faults off Sumatra's west coast. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:36, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The shift was 15m (50ft). [6]. It would have been mostly vertical as the Indian Plate shifted down under the Burma Plate. 600 miles of fault line jumps 500ft, and all the water over hit starts flowing downhill... BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

which plates?

it seems to me that that is the australian (or indo/australian) and eurasian plates, not the phillipines plate as said in the article... at least according to the US Geological Survey (which may or may not define plates differently than others) - according to this map:

 http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eastern/plates.html
 http://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/globe-plates.GIF

can someone who knows about this either explain why not or change the article to the correct plate names? thanks...

I moved this post down from the top.

Good catch! That was embarrassing. I just rewrote the section using what info is on the USGS page but it could do with a good going over by someone more knowledgeable than me. And I'm not sure I made the whole sub-plate thing clear enough. BanyanTree 06:21, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

9.1?

Some of the news here in Australia is saying it's 9.1 richters. [maestro] 07:38, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The article is reporting in moment magnitude scale, not Richter scale. The Richter scale is considered reliable between 2.0 and 6.0 as it tends to rate all big earthquakes as being roughly the same number. Moment magnitude is accurate above 3.5. USGS (and Australian Broadcasting Company) are still reporting 9.0 as of my last check. BanyanTree 07:59, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A better map from German Wikipedia

File:Indischer Ozean Beben2004 blank.gif

I have created a blank map from de:Bild:Indischer Ozean Beben2004.png. It's a good map. Anyone cared to finish this job? I have to do my own job now. -- Toytoy 08:20, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Disasters in these places, when?

Would you collect the time (in UTC or local time) and height of tsunamis that hit these places?

• India
  • Tamil Nadu
  • Chennai 0540 GMT (1110 local)
  • Pondichery
  • Kerala
  • Andhra Pradesh
  • Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• Indonesia
  • Banda Aceh
• Malaysia
  • Kedah
  • Perak
  • Selangor
  • Langkawi island
  • Penang 0330 UTC (1130 local), 0430 UTC (1230 local), 0615 UTC (1415 local), 2.4 - 3m reported. --Andylkl 10:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)
• Maldives 0630 GMT (1130 local)
  • Malé
• Sri Lanka 0430 GMT (1030 local)
  • Trincomalee
• Thailand
  • Phuket: 0130 GMT (0830 local)
• Australia - I have seen no reports of the tsunami reaching the coast of WA, although since it is closer to the epicentre than Kenya it should have done. Adam 10:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC) -You're forgetting about all the islands (Sumatra, Java, etc) between the epicenter and Australia. It's all ocean towards Africa so there was nothing to block the wave. BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  The tsunami hit the coast of WA, Adam. Well, that's according to one of the news bulletins I watched tonight (Nine or Ten). Some cray boats broke their moorings, and there was some minor flooding. No significant damage. - Mark 13:22, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Bangladesh
• Cocos (Keeling) Islands
• Kenya
• Myanmar
• Oman
• Réunion
• Seychelles 2m
• Singapore - No tsunami. Minor tremors reported. No injuries or deaths reported.
• Somalia

The information collected could be used to develop more detailed maps. -- Toytoy 09:50, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Fyi, it's pretty hard to get an accurate account from so many places. Btw, Pulau Pinang is Penang. --Andylkl 10:28, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Andylkl. If you can get info for just the hardest hit areas it would be good. BanyanTree 10:39, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'll wait a couple of days when the order is restored and scientists are telling stories. Now is not the best time to gather accurate information. Thanks for all your help. -- Toytoy 12:35, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Images

I have removed the image gallery from my website and uploaded the photos to the commons at commons:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, all under GFDL. Please use any of those images if you prefer. Matthewmayer 13:10, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Word usage: Injured vs Wounded

I am wondering about the usage of the word Wounded and variations at multiple places in the article. Typical English usage for wounded refers to injuries inflicted by weapons or acts of militaristic aggression. I suggest a change to injure, injuries, injured, etc. (Note, it seems that American English dictionaries may be more ambivalent on this issue, which is why I am not making the edit directly myself.) Dictionary Defs gcom 18:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)

American English usually makes the same distinction; injured is definitely more appropriate in this context. Tverbeek 18:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif

Anyone know how to edit Image:2004 Indonesia Tsunami.gif to slow it down? - it cycles so fast you can't really see the detail very well. About half its current speed would be a lot better - MPF 18:44, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Works here. Well, good graphic but also Somalia was hit. --ThomasK 18:54, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Yes it works, but each cycle only lasts 2.5 seconds; it would look a lot better if each cycle lasted 5 seconds before repeating - MPF 19:05, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I tried at 0.2 for each frame (5.2 sec.), but it looks pathetically slow. —Cantus…☎ 19:24, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks; that's a lot better now! - MPF 19:41, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)