Talk:Fukushima nuclear accident
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fukushima nuclear accident article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
A news item involving Fukushima nuclear accident was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: |
This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 11, 2021 and March 11, 2023. |
|
On 6 September 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Fukushima nuclear accident. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Move to "Fukushima Nuclear Accident" edit
Too Detailed edit
I think it's fair to say that for Wikipedia standards, the page is a bit long. However, I think it's also fair to say that a power station accident on this scale should not be held to the standard of a celebrity biography page. I don't believe the section describing the series of events can be meaningfully shortened without significantly reducing the quality of the information. Also, in my personal opinion, the description of the event should probably take priority on the main page over the following political fights and whatnot, which are similarly long.
For now, I have removed the discussion template from units 1-3 to improve readability but discussion should continue here. Inanimatecarbonrobin (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most such events are described in a very detailed way as they unroll and shortly after, with lots of speculations and little details that seem important at that time. After 10 years, most of that is completely irrelevant and can be removed or summarised, and whole paragraphs can be compressed to one sentence. Cloud200 (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Death count and fatalities edit
In the article it lists 2,202 deaths from evacuation in the info box, unfortunately I cannot check the sourced article due to a paywall but the number aligns closely to the 2,220 patients and elderly under the Fatalities section.
Following the source provided in the Fatalities section, it does not state that they died, just that those were the number of hospital inpatients and elderly people in nursing facilities in the surrounding area before the evacuation. Rather the death numbers listed were 12 of a group of 27 severe patients and later reported more than 50. Which matches the number of 51 given by the government elsewhere in the article.
Could someone with access please double check the article and numbers provided? 2A02:C7C:9824:8A00:6488:54E2:2639:324C (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
- The article says specifically 2,202 deaths "from evacuation stress, interruption to medical care and suicide" according to the government's Reconstruction Agency, and that "[t]he wider death toll from the quake was 15,895, according to the National Police Agency." 1,984 of the deaths were over 65, again according to the Financial Times, so take from that what you will. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 21:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Fatalities of evacuation in summary edit
I think a total of 50 or so are attributed to the evacuation. Not 2000+ BoNiLi (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
- I was confused based on what the article said about this as well but the 2200+ number checks out from multiple sources. Source for the 50 number in the article text doesn't seem accessible but it seems like it's from a very limited set of people in hospitals or nursing homes while the 2200+ number is the entire population within the evacuated zone. Leaving the mention of the 50+ number in the article but I've added a mention of the wider number. – Stuart98 ( Talk • Contribs) 09:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
the nuclear disaster in japan edit
whom was behind it 2001:8F8:2D45:B59C:852A:E54A:5F6A:C393 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
nuclear accident : why not "nuclear disaster" ... edit
Hello, I am french, I write to you in english, learned at school, not very good, I wish you can understand... Fukushima disaster is more important than a so-called nuclear "accident". In french : accident nucléaire. Isn't it rather a nuclear "disaster", in french : catastrophe nucléaire. This is an important debate.
I wish the french wikipedia would write : CATASTROPHE nucléaire de Fukushima. Thank you for your response Evelyne Genoulaz 89.3.51.240 (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- This article used to be called Fukushima nuclear disaster, but it was moved after a discussion. See the link near the top of this page. As for French Wikipedia's title, that's not anything that English Wikipedia has any say over. Meters (talk) 08:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)