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: 90 days |
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
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)
missing talk page archives edit
talk page archives 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are all red links. Not sure if this is the right spot to mention it, but oh well. Gaismagorm (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Skeptical Inquirer not Reliable for scientific info edit
Unfortunately this is not listed in WP:RSP but based off Skeptical Inquirer I do not think this is a reliable source for scientific information. I am removing it in a few locations. The reason I am making such a stir about this is the structure of the section on Radiation Effects in Human is clearly inspired by the Skeptical Inquirer source.
- "a number of media reports incorrectly describing thousands of victims of tsunami as if they were victims of the "nuclear disaster" - Skeptical Inquirer is the only source for this claim. I think this is an example of the kind of non-scientific claim that it could be a reliable source for, but this seems like something that should have more sources.
- "Worldwide media coverage of the incident has been described as 'ten years of disinformation'" - Skeptical Inquirer is the only journal using this term this is not a widely held belief. If this POV was notable then it should have been attributed; however, this POV is not notable so I am removing it. I reworded the claim and moved it to the section on Germany's response since the source was talking about German media coverage.