This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The 1928 article listed the hurricane as occurring at Lake Okeechobee on Sep. 17. Based on my research I changed this to Sep. 16. The hurricane struck on the night of the 16th, with the greatest surge happening around 10 pm. Of course it wasn't until the next day that the damage could be assessed. Jdorje 02:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The combined death toll is now put at 4075+. This comes directly from [3] which shows the total death toll as 3375-4075. The footnote (b) explains that this includes 1575 from the Caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida; note that this document is from 1997. For years the official death toll from Florida was 1836. However in [4] we see that the US death toll is revised to the upper limit of the previous range: 2500+ (this happened in 2003, according to one of the other sources). This clearly makes the total death toll 4075+.
The breakdown of the Caribbean deaths is unclear. According to the explanation in the footnote from above [5], other sources list 300 or 312 deaths in Puerto Rico, 600-1200 for Guadaloupe, 18 for Grand Turk, and 3 for Martinique. Totalling the upper bounds for these ranges comes out to 1533, still below the Caribbean total of 1575. One Wikipedia author listed the deaths in Puerto Rico as 1000-2000, but there is no external source for this and it seems likely this is lumping in Guadaloupe. Jdorje
According to various sources this is the first category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. Records apparently go back to 1851 but before hunter airplanes (and later satellites) hurricanes out at sea were obviously not well monitored. This hurricane supposedly hit Puerto Rico as a category 5 (though sources for this are scarce); I don't think there are wind readings from out at sea. Based on the pressure measurements (which are more reliable) one might be doubtful that the hurricane ever reached category 5 status. But NOAA says that it was, and we should obviously follow their judgement. Jdorje
This change made an addition mentioning the Saintes Islands. However there is no reference for this and I can't find anything about it (see this search, for instance). So I'm removing this claim. — jdorje ( talk) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote
which seemed quite obvious to me. Although the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane was likely stronger, no wind measurements for it were taken at all and the NHC best-track currently puts it at 160 mph winds (probably just because they're conservative and that's the lowest possible Cat5 wind rating). However, some disclaimer here is surely justified. Next, there's the point that Dog's winds were flight-level, so we could change the sentence to
So the question is, what's the answer? The NHC surely has enough archives to determine this, but I don't think they are available. However I will point out that it's quite possible no storm has ever had stronger surface winds measured until the use of dropsondes allowed measuring surface winds while hurricanes were at sea.
Anyway, this is just an interesting observation. It is unlikely that we could find legitimate enough sources to support more than the current statement.
— jdorje ( talk) 08:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So how can we find out about damage elsewhere (outside of inland florida)? A likely source is the MWR ( http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1928.pdf - currently not referenced at all), though there are surely others. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "No reports of damage accompanied the barometric data [from guadeloupe]. However, press dipatches from Paris, France, indicate that great destruction was wrought by the hurricane in Guadeloupe...". This implies there is more to be found but one would have to dig into french archives. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "The English islands of St. Kitts and Montserrat also suffered heavy losses". — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "The island of St. Croix suffered heavily in loss of life and in damage to property and crops". Elsewhere it says that the center of the storm passed 10 miles south of the island. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The MWR has a lot about PR. Just a few disorganized bits of trivia here: Apparently the 160 mph wind reading occurred 30 miles south of the storm's center and 3 hours before peak winds were reached. Shortly afterwards the anemometer was damaged; with various shadey extrapolations based on the reading after the anemometer was partially damaged, they conclude the reading would have been 190 mph had the instrument remained intact. Rainfall of over 25 inches was measured in some places. Loss of life was minimized because the island had plenty of warning. The Guayama 936 mbar reading was supposedly from the "vortex" of the storm, but in the next sentence they say hurricane-force winds were sustained there for 18 straight hours, with no mention of a letup as the eye passed. There were no reports from vessels at sea since they had been warned via radio and were staying out of the way. The most interesting bit: "several hundred thousand people were rendered homeless" - that is astounding for this time period. — jdorje ( talk) 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a FA this article is basically finished. I know of no more information available on impact anywhere. Maybe I'll give the MWR a last run-through to see if there's any more to add on south florida. One thing that could be done, though, is a slight restructuring to add preparations and aftermath sections. A preparations section could be worthwhile since PR, the Bahamas, and Florida all had good warning of the storm's approach. Aftermath could cover the racial issues section. Also one thing I read in the MWR was interesting: apparently after this storm they confirmed what had been observed in the 1926 storm - that well-constructed buildings would suffer practically no damage from winds that would destroy inferior buildings. This is what lead to improved building codes in Florida that made later hurricanes like the 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane much less destructive. — jdorje ( talk) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was excellent and well deserving of the recent "featured" award;however, I think it could greatly benefit by a map showing the chronological progress of the hurricane. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Hokeman 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, something like that is what I had in mind, but in the main body of the article with dates and times- about every sixth dot or so along the track. Hokeman 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, here's a new NWS page on this hurricane. Hurricanehink 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The hurricane killed over 4,000 people, so why is it not high importance? Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In the info box it says the storm cost 1 billion in 2006 dollars. However, Section 0 states the storm cost 800 million in 2005 dollars. Did the dollar really devalueate 25% in one year?
Isaac 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Jamesfett ( talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a suggestion to amend the material in the article. I saw that it is scheduled to be requested to appear on the main page.
1. This statement in the article: However, a levee breach of this kind is unlikely to occur again because of the much larger Herbert Hoover Dike that now contains the waters of Lake Okeechobee needs to be revisited. Particularly in light of publications like this.
2. Another long-term effect of the hurricane, along with the 1926 Miami Hurricane, that also caused the breaching of Lake Okeechobee's levees, was flood control in South Florida. That is discussed extensively in Draining and development of the Everglades. I'd be happy to assist in incorporating some of the material: one or two sentences.
Thoughts? -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This hurricane really does have some ridiculous statistics from its puerto rico landfall.
Of course one is free to doubt these measurements. I don't know how accurate surface wind measurements from this time were supposed to be (in later decades air wind measurements were used almost exclusively, until it was discovered these were hugely overestimated). You can also look at the 936 mbar pressure reading from Guayama, supposedly taken from the "vortex" of the storm (despite the fact that Guayama reported 18 hours of continuous winds, implying it was never in the eye), and conclude that the storm was not a category 5 at all. All of the wind measurements are unconfirmed since the instruments were all destroyed and could not be calibrated.
— jdorje ( talk) 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Some sources list this as the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" or "San Felipe Hurricane" or "San Felipe II Hurricane" (see San Felipe Hurricane for info on other hurricanes of that name). This article uses "Okeechobee Hurricane" as its name since it's shorter, the NOAA Okeechobee page names it that, and the name is still suitably unique so there's no chance of confusion. Redirects and disambiguations have been set up for the other common names. In other NOAA lists it is included as both "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" and "San Felipe Hurricane" - sometimes being included twice in the same list. Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water". Jdorje 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"San Felipe Segundo" is the name as it was known to those countries who suffered MAJOR IMPACT. Okeechobee is solely a U.S. perspective. Please include both, regardless of length. Confusion is arising due to this desire to rename a historical hurricane that was known by people in the Caribbean as "San Felipe Segundo"
I AGREE WITH the anonymous June 13, 2006, user above (
[9]), though the MAJOR IMPACT claim is (partially) debatable.
On the defense of the "San Felipe Segundo" (i.e, "San Felipe II") name:
(1) The original name of this hurricane was in fact, San Felipe Segundo (e.g., San Felipe II).
(2) Had the hurricane hit elsewhere than Lake Okeechobee, it most probably would not be called Okeechobee. Compare this with the predictable manner in which hurricanes were named under the Spanish tradition ( [17]): its name would be that name of that day's saint -- no fuss, no quarrels, no preferences, no favorites, no bias/no POV.
(3) One note on damages: according to NOAA, "Damage to property was estimated at $50,000,000 in Puerto Rico and $25,000,000 in Florida."( [18]). NOAA also reports that Florida saw over 2,500 deaths from this hurricane, while Puerto Rico saw around 300 deaths, and the Caribbean in general saw around 1,575.( [19]) Thus, which was/were the area/s of major impact (as the anonymous user above states), will depend on weather financial loss or human loss is used as the criteria.
ON THE ABOVE reasons by Jdorje for titling this article with the Okeechobee name over the San Felipe II name:
(1) Shorter title. Favoring Okeechobee over San Felipe II based on title length really has no basis at all: Nowhere can I find that this is a criteria for naming wikipedia articles for which a de facto name already exists. If we were to follow that line of reasoning, then arguably many other articles would have a different name. This, thus, is a matter of personal perspective ( POV), and not a basis for deciding the article's name ( WP:Title#Deciding an article title).
(2) Official name. Titling the article on the basis that Okeechobee is the name chosen by NOAA, is not substatiated by the facts: The claim is true if you look at the local Miami-South Florida NWS office's website ( [20]). If you look at the San Juan NWS office's website, you see this hurricane is called San Felipe II, no mention of Okeechobee at all ("Unfortunately, this building was destroyed by the San Felipe II Hurricane of September 13, 1928.") See: ( [21]). Its imporatnt to follow San Juan on this matter, and not Miami, for reasons stated above under 1(a)-1(c). More importantly, if we read the NHC's page itself ( [22]) the hurricane is listed as "San Felipe-Okeechobee" - yes, providing a clear preference for "San Felipe (II)" as the name by which the hurricane was known everywhere else outside of Florida. Incidentally, jdorge states "the NOAA Okeechobee page names it [Okeechobee]", but fails to provide a link.
(3) Disambiguation. Superficially, this may appear to be a very valid argument, but in reality it is not. The editor appears to forget that, either way, the title already includes the year of the hurricane ("1928"), ahead of everything else. Any ambiguity, thus, has been stopped on its tracks before you even get to say anything about the name of the hurricane, whether San Felipe II, or Okeechobee, or - for that matter - plain San Felipe. That is, even if the article was titled "1928 San Felipe hurricane" (as, the NHC does) the reader would already know the article is not about San Felipe I. So, no, there's no chance of confusion. This puported criteria, thus, is also a reflection of the editor's personal view on what the title of the article should be, and not the genuine reason to decide on the article's name ( WP:Neutral point of view#Article naming).
(4) The editor also took the time to point out that "Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water"." The question is, so what? Maybe this is supposed to be another reason to name the article Okeechobee???
Thus, the only sensible, WP:NPOV, argument in favor of Okeechobee would had been #2 - Official Name. However, as we can see, San Felipe II was, is, and continues to be the primary official name of the 1928 hurricane in all levels of authority at NOAA.
BTW, most people in the continental United States are quite familiar with that big body of water stuck in the middle of the Florida penninsula called Lake Okeechobee, it is hard to forget after been tested on it in middle school history and high school geography class. Okeechobee is only a local U.S. perspective for the hurricane called San Felipe II, possibly because it is easier in the U.S. to remember which hurricane it was if it is associated with the area in the mainland U.S. where it hit hardest. It is thus understandable that there be a personal preference for Okeechobee as the name of this hurricane (and thus the article) -- and especially when the other choice, San Felipe II, seems so much more foreign. However, such personal preferences are not valid in wikipedia, and in fact they are invalid ( WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism).
As such I have tagged the page accordingly until these small issues can be resolved. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised you went into such detail, but despite that, I disagree. Calling it the "San Felipe hurricane" would be more biased toward Puerto Rico, but the greatest impact was in Florida (where there were the most deaths). In the NHC's list of deadliest hurricanes [23], they list Florida first under areas impacted by the hurricane. Additionally, the listing of all U.S. hurricanes, NOAA lists the storm's name as "Lake Okeechobee". I would be fine changing it to "1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane", if desired, but I would not like to see it as "1928 San Felipe hurricane". Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(1)such a title as yours is:
(a) confusing
(b)and not precise
(c)inconsistent with other hurricane articles.
(2)Additionally, just "San Felipe hurricane" would not be recognizable, since the NOAA calls it "Lake Okeechobee hurricane"
(3)people have no idea what San Felipe is (is it a place, a person who died, etc.).
(4)The current title (or slight variant thereof) really is
(a)recognizable (people know where Lake Okeechobee is),
(b)concise (just three words, as opposed to four),
(c)and consistent
(i) (most hurricane articles are named after locations,
(ii) and [are named after] whatever the NOAA calls it).
(d)In the grand scheme of things, an article title is not that important, it's the content inside that matters.
(5)I hope this discussion wouldn't turn you away from Wikipedia, we could use someone who is passionate about hurricanes!
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Fences& Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Closing rationale: The title stays as it is until there is consensus to move to another title. This may be disappointing and seem like a cop out, but I read this debate through carefully, and checked sources to confirm what was being said. Here's some of what I concluded, which may help a future debate on the matter: 1. The name of the hurricane is often "San Felipe" in Spanish sources, but this is the English Wikipedia, so we need to go by the common name in English sources. 2. San Felipe Segundo is very rarely used in reliable sources. [30] [31] [32] 3. "San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane" is used in some reliable sources, but only rarely. [33] [34] [35], and "Okeechobee-San Felipe hurricane" is barely used at all. 4. Okeechobee is used about three times as often as San Felipe in relation to the 1928 hurricane at Google Scholar and Google Books, and 15 times as often at Google News (searches were for Okeechobee+1928+hurricane vs "San Felipe"+1928+hurricane). 5. There was some cherry-picking of sources, but it is the prevalence of use in reliable sources that is most important; of course individual sources use different names. 6. Alternatives, some of them contemporary, include the "West Indian hurricane", the "West Indies hurricane", "The Hurricane of 1928", "Lake Okeechobee hurricane", "The Night Two Thousand Died", "Puerto Rico- Palm Beach hurricane", "1928 Florida hurricane", "Great Okeechobee Hurricane", "Storm 4 of 1928", etc. The lack of consensus here reflects a lack of consensus in the real world. Fences& Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1928 Okeechobee hurricane → 1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane — Relisted.-- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting this article title change for the reasons presented under Note on name. In a nutshell, the current name represents a local view, not a worldwide view, of the subject; a proposed new name (such as, "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") would be more "neutral", i.e., not favor any region, country, tribe, landmark, geographical feature, etc; a new title would reflect a more balanced view of the cyclone, i.e., would incorporate the name of this hurricane as it is known in the the Caribbean (the name Okeechobee means nothing in the Caribbean); the addition requested in the new title (namely, the name "San Felipe II") is often encountered in the naming of the cyclone, and it is, in fact, how it was, and is, known by the authorities, namely NOAA). Please note that I am not suggesting belittling the use of the name "Okeechobee"; but simply emphasizing "San Felipe II" as this is the requested modification. Mercy11 ( talk) 00:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
What I am saying is: that the current title does not provide a worldwide view of the subject.
What I am saying is: that people in the Caribbean have never heard of Okeechobee (the name, the location, or the hurricane) before and that we should include the name San Felipe as a better way to describe the article for their benefit.
And what I am saying is: that any new title should incorporate the name Okeechobee as well so that users from the US will not be left out either. Hope this helps.
As for the name "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" that you referenced as not being used in the Internet, you may be right. But your implication is that that is a bad name. We need to understand the context in which I was presenting this: First, what we are saying is, let's make it a title that contains both "San Felipe" and "Okeechobee" in it. This means any variant of either one (San Felipe/San Felipe Segundo/San Felipe II/etc) and (Okeechobee/Lake Okeechobee/L.Okeechobee/etc). It could be as long as
or as short as
We also need to understand that before the title change was brought to this forum, it was discussed, quite comprehensively and for several days, in
THIS PLACE. One of the editors there who opposed the change to "San Felipe anything" commented that s/he "would be fine changing it to '1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane'". As such, I then proposed in this current forum that both his/her "Lake" part be added in addition to my request for "San Felipe" to be added. But we need to understand that this is not the only way the title can read and still please those of us that object to the current title. We are willing to compromise. If editors object to the "Lake" or the "Segundo" parts, I believe that can be accomodated too. In any event, eliminating those two parts will make the title shorter (undoubtedly pleasing some) while still keeping it unique, unambiguous, and precise (pleasing others). Hope this helps.
IF, however, what you are saying is that "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" would be even harder to find when googled because nobody else calls it that, then perfect!!! That means it would turn up only the wikipedia article thus making it Easiest to find yet, right? Regards,
Mercy11 (
talk) 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I just ask, how much is there to be gained if the title is moved? The article has been featured with the current title for four years. The title works with its conciseness and how it's easy to find. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Agree The current name hinders access to information for people interested in and knowledgeable about Puerto Rican history. I also wish to protest the language employed by Moni3 above, which is full of profanities and a direct attack of another Wikpedian. I would recommend cleaning up the profanities.-- Lawrlafo ( talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong agree Not sure what there is to debate. The links to official hurricane authorities provided above clearly indicate that San Felipe is just as valid a name to use for this article as Okeechobee. The double name (with accompanying redirects) seems like a no-brainer solution here. Zeng8r ( talk) 01:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as per Moni3, Juliancolton, and Hurricanehink (above, from your first effort to push your preferred name, which is incorrectly placed at the top of the page, throwing the whole page out of chronological order). The proposed name is atrocious. While I'm not going to use the same language Moni3 used, her anger is thoroughly justified by Mercy's uninformed comments. Moni has written six featured articles on the Everglades (among her 17 featured articles), and accusing her of "drive-by" voting is extraordinarily arrogant, not to mention flat-out incorrect. As to the title, San Felipe Segundo Hurricane already redirects to the article and is mentioned in the lede, which satisfies Wikipedia:TITLE#Treatment of alternative names, the relevant portion of the article name policy. Your proposed name does not. Further, since this is the English Wikipedia,and the more common name in English is Okeechobee Hurricane, not San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, the article should remain at its current location. Horologium (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just going to throw my $0.02 into this debate, I feel that the article should remain at its current location. We have redirects for a reason...If someone looking for the storm types in San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, they'll just be taken to this article, no big deal. This whole thing, IMO, is just like how society (at least in the United States) is going. Arguing over the smallest of things so that everyone can be seen equal, with no discrimination whatsoever. Seriously, is all this time really needed to decide what to name article which people spend less than two seconds reading the title of? Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree-San Felipe is the name by which it was known in Puerto Rico, the first large United States jurisdiction it hit in the Caribbean and in neighboring Caribbean nations that were impacted by it. Following President Kennedy's Dec. 15, 1961 speech stating that PR is part of America, in "America" it was first known as San Felipe, so that should be an essential part of the title of any article describing this particular storm. Having wrought much damage while known as San Felipe and before it hit Florida days after it was already known in JFK's America as San Felipe, is another reason I also fully agree with the proposal. Finally, on a lighter note, we should all be in agreement that NOAA's dision years back to give one proper name in alphabetical order to each hurricane has been one of its best ideas ever, perhaps other than installing Doppler radars! Pr4ever ( talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note on the decision-making process of this discussion:
Invalid arguments in this discussion:
There clearly is more than one plausible title. I think "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" is too long of a title, and others such as "1928 Puerto Rico-Florida hurricane" or "1928 Greater Antilles-Florida hurricane" are just confusing (and certainly not recognizable). Here is an excerpt from WP:TITLE
There rarely are article titles that are that long that contain two possible names. It is invariably one title, with redirects from all other possible titles. If us at the tropical cyclone Wikiproject are biased for trying to maintain a stable and concise name, then surely the other side is biased for trying to force in an alternative name. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all: It is my understanding that this forum will close in 1 day. It appears there is a reasonable amount of support for the name change; but it also appears that some contributors cannot fully support the change on the basis that the proposed title ("1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") is judged to be too long.
As such I would like to propose that as an alternative we use the following modified version of the originally proposed new title. From what I can gather, this is what most editors really want:
“ | 1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane | ” |
Why am I proposing this new title?
Why do I sense this?
(1) It includes both San Felipe and Okeechobee in it
(2) It uses the same format (year-name-"hurricane" word) as the other articles in the wiki
WP:TS project
(3) The current title does not include "Lake", so nothing is lost from the old title
(4) The "II" part (Note: this is the same as "Segundo") is not needed in the title since, with the presence of the year there ("1928"), it is no longer necessary to use "II" to differentiate this hurricane from the September 13, 1876, "
San Felipe I" hurricane
[3]
(5) And probably most important, this proposed title name is used by
NOAA to refer to this hurricane as it has been previously pointed out by some contributors.
[4]
[5]
We will, I propose, use the name "San Felipe" before the name "Okeechobee" in the title, since we rarely see this cited/written/documented as "Okeechobee/San Felipe".
Comments, if any, are welcomed.
Either way, thank you for your participation!
Regards,
Mercy11 (
talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see this form this perspective: does changing the title enrich or detract from the encyclopedic mission? Does it add or remove encyclopedic information? Does it help or confuse the reader? Is it encyclopedic?
I think the answer to these questions is that the proposed title enriches the encyclopedic mission, it adds valuable information, and it clarifies exactly what it is meant, right in the title. It is a fine example of how to do compound titles right, and is fully supported by reliable sources (ie this is not pulled out of someone's ass).
However, lets accept the the "quantitative" argument as valid (something I do not advocate) for discussion's sake. Lets say the closing admin leans to the oppose !voters' argument. In other words, lets wikilawyer:
NPOV is a five pillar level policy. It is generally felt by the community that all policies and guidelines are secondary to the WP:5P level policies. So, even if we misconstrue WP:TITLE position's on English language sources to mean what the oppose !votes say it does, it is irrelevant to the overriding fact that since a neutral POV alternative to the title is in fact supported by THE English language reliable source, it is our duty as wikipedians to adopt it. The current title is not neutral. It reflects the inherent bias of the focus of English reliable sources on how the hurricane was viewed in the major English speaking area affected by it, this inherent bias cannot be reflected in wikipedia, because we - unlike reliable sources themselves - are held to the standards of a neutral point of view. Since there is overwhelming evidence that English language sources do support a more neutral alternative - in other words, that a neutral alternative is not a fringe view in itself - we have all the policy reasons in the world to adopt it, and police based objections are rendered quaint by the importance of NPOV over any other policy arguments.
I dislike arguments based on policy and not encyclopedic quality, but I felt we needed to address what I see as the oppose !votes' incorrect and narrow appreciation of wikipedia policy. THey should focus on the much more important issues of fighting systemic bias by means of upholding the five pillars than the narrow stylistic considerations raised. I remain unpersuaded that changing the title to the excellent, realiably sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic title proposed harms rather than advance our mission and enhances the quality of the encyclopedic entry. -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my feeling is that if NOAA and other authoritative sources had referred to this storm as the "Okeechobee -Tampa or -New Orleans (or any other American locale) hurricane" and somebody suggested changing the name of the article to reflect this, it would have been changed without one dissenting voice, probably without any discussion at all. But look at this page! It sure seems to be that it's simply the potential use of a Spanish name that has people freaking out. Zeng8r ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
The 1928 article listed the hurricane as occurring at Lake Okeechobee on Sep. 17. Based on my research I changed this to Sep. 16. The hurricane struck on the night of the 16th, with the greatest surge happening around 10 pm. Of course it wasn't until the next day that the damage could be assessed. Jdorje 02:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The combined death toll is now put at 4075+. This comes directly from [3] which shows the total death toll as 3375-4075. The footnote (b) explains that this includes 1575 from the Caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida; note that this document is from 1997. For years the official death toll from Florida was 1836. However in [4] we see that the US death toll is revised to the upper limit of the previous range: 2500+ (this happened in 2003, according to one of the other sources). This clearly makes the total death toll 4075+.
The breakdown of the Caribbean deaths is unclear. According to the explanation in the footnote from above [5], other sources list 300 or 312 deaths in Puerto Rico, 600-1200 for Guadaloupe, 18 for Grand Turk, and 3 for Martinique. Totalling the upper bounds for these ranges comes out to 1533, still below the Caribbean total of 1575. One Wikipedia author listed the deaths in Puerto Rico as 1000-2000, but there is no external source for this and it seems likely this is lumping in Guadaloupe. Jdorje
According to various sources this is the first category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. Records apparently go back to 1851 but before hunter airplanes (and later satellites) hurricanes out at sea were obviously not well monitored. This hurricane supposedly hit Puerto Rico as a category 5 (though sources for this are scarce); I don't think there are wind readings from out at sea. Based on the pressure measurements (which are more reliable) one might be doubtful that the hurricane ever reached category 5 status. But NOAA says that it was, and we should obviously follow their judgement. Jdorje
This change made an addition mentioning the Saintes Islands. However there is no reference for this and I can't find anything about it (see this search, for instance). So I'm removing this claim. — jdorje ( talk) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I wrote
which seemed quite obvious to me. Although the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane was likely stronger, no wind measurements for it were taken at all and the NHC best-track currently puts it at 160 mph winds (probably just because they're conservative and that's the lowest possible Cat5 wind rating). However, some disclaimer here is surely justified. Next, there's the point that Dog's winds were flight-level, so we could change the sentence to
So the question is, what's the answer? The NHC surely has enough archives to determine this, but I don't think they are available. However I will point out that it's quite possible no storm has ever had stronger surface winds measured until the use of dropsondes allowed measuring surface winds while hurricanes were at sea.
Anyway, this is just an interesting observation. It is unlikely that we could find legitimate enough sources to support more than the current statement.
— jdorje ( talk) 08:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
So how can we find out about damage elsewhere (outside of inland florida)? A likely source is the MWR ( http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1928.pdf - currently not referenced at all), though there are surely others. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "No reports of damage accompanied the barometric data [from guadeloupe]. However, press dipatches from Paris, France, indicate that great destruction was wrought by the hurricane in Guadeloupe...". This implies there is more to be found but one would have to dig into french archives. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "The English islands of St. Kitts and Montserrat also suffered heavy losses". — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
From the MWR: "The island of St. Croix suffered heavily in loss of life and in damage to property and crops". Elsewhere it says that the center of the storm passed 10 miles south of the island. — jdorje ( talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The MWR has a lot about PR. Just a few disorganized bits of trivia here: Apparently the 160 mph wind reading occurred 30 miles south of the storm's center and 3 hours before peak winds were reached. Shortly afterwards the anemometer was damaged; with various shadey extrapolations based on the reading after the anemometer was partially damaged, they conclude the reading would have been 190 mph had the instrument remained intact. Rainfall of over 25 inches was measured in some places. Loss of life was minimized because the island had plenty of warning. The Guayama 936 mbar reading was supposedly from the "vortex" of the storm, but in the next sentence they say hurricane-force winds were sustained there for 18 straight hours, with no mention of a letup as the eye passed. There were no reports from vessels at sea since they had been warned via radio and were staying out of the way. The most interesting bit: "several hundred thousand people were rendered homeless" - that is astounding for this time period. — jdorje ( talk) 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
As a FA this article is basically finished. I know of no more information available on impact anywhere. Maybe I'll give the MWR a last run-through to see if there's any more to add on south florida. One thing that could be done, though, is a slight restructuring to add preparations and aftermath sections. A preparations section could be worthwhile since PR, the Bahamas, and Florida all had good warning of the storm's approach. Aftermath could cover the racial issues section. Also one thing I read in the MWR was interesting: apparently after this storm they confirmed what had been observed in the 1926 storm - that well-constructed buildings would suffer practically no damage from winds that would destroy inferior buildings. This is what lead to improved building codes in Florida that made later hurricanes like the 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane much less destructive. — jdorje ( talk) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This article was excellent and well deserving of the recent "featured" award;however, I think it could greatly benefit by a map showing the chronological progress of the hurricane. "A picture is worth a thousand words." Hokeman 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, something like that is what I had in mind, but in the main body of the article with dates and times- about every sixth dot or so along the track. Hokeman 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, here's a new NWS page on this hurricane. Hurricanehink 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
The hurricane killed over 4,000 people, so why is it not high importance? Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
In the info box it says the storm cost 1 billion in 2006 dollars. However, Section 0 states the storm cost 800 million in 2005 dollars. Did the dollar really devalueate 25% in one year?
Isaac 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Jamesfett ( talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This is a suggestion to amend the material in the article. I saw that it is scheduled to be requested to appear on the main page.
1. This statement in the article: However, a levee breach of this kind is unlikely to occur again because of the much larger Herbert Hoover Dike that now contains the waters of Lake Okeechobee needs to be revisited. Particularly in light of publications like this.
2. Another long-term effect of the hurricane, along with the 1926 Miami Hurricane, that also caused the breaching of Lake Okeechobee's levees, was flood control in South Florida. That is discussed extensively in Draining and development of the Everglades. I'd be happy to assist in incorporating some of the material: one or two sentences.
Thoughts? -- Moni3 ( talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This hurricane really does have some ridiculous statistics from its puerto rico landfall.
Of course one is free to doubt these measurements. I don't know how accurate surface wind measurements from this time were supposed to be (in later decades air wind measurements were used almost exclusively, until it was discovered these were hugely overestimated). You can also look at the 936 mbar pressure reading from Guayama, supposedly taken from the "vortex" of the storm (despite the fact that Guayama reported 18 hours of continuous winds, implying it was never in the eye), and conclude that the storm was not a category 5 at all. All of the wind measurements are unconfirmed since the instruments were all destroyed and could not be calibrated.
— jdorje ( talk) 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Some sources list this as the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" or "San Felipe Hurricane" or "San Felipe II Hurricane" (see San Felipe Hurricane for info on other hurricanes of that name). This article uses "Okeechobee Hurricane" as its name since it's shorter, the NOAA Okeechobee page names it that, and the name is still suitably unique so there's no chance of confusion. Redirects and disambiguations have been set up for the other common names. In other NOAA lists it is included as both "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" and "San Felipe Hurricane" - sometimes being included twice in the same list. Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water". Jdorje 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
"San Felipe Segundo" is the name as it was known to those countries who suffered MAJOR IMPACT. Okeechobee is solely a U.S. perspective. Please include both, regardless of length. Confusion is arising due to this desire to rename a historical hurricane that was known by people in the Caribbean as "San Felipe Segundo"
I AGREE WITH the anonymous June 13, 2006, user above (
[9]), though the MAJOR IMPACT claim is (partially) debatable.
On the defense of the "San Felipe Segundo" (i.e, "San Felipe II") name:
(1) The original name of this hurricane was in fact, San Felipe Segundo (e.g., San Felipe II).
(2) Had the hurricane hit elsewhere than Lake Okeechobee, it most probably would not be called Okeechobee. Compare this with the predictable manner in which hurricanes were named under the Spanish tradition ( [17]): its name would be that name of that day's saint -- no fuss, no quarrels, no preferences, no favorites, no bias/no POV.
(3) One note on damages: according to NOAA, "Damage to property was estimated at $50,000,000 in Puerto Rico and $25,000,000 in Florida."( [18]). NOAA also reports that Florida saw over 2,500 deaths from this hurricane, while Puerto Rico saw around 300 deaths, and the Caribbean in general saw around 1,575.( [19]) Thus, which was/were the area/s of major impact (as the anonymous user above states), will depend on weather financial loss or human loss is used as the criteria.
ON THE ABOVE reasons by Jdorje for titling this article with the Okeechobee name over the San Felipe II name:
(1) Shorter title. Favoring Okeechobee over San Felipe II based on title length really has no basis at all: Nowhere can I find that this is a criteria for naming wikipedia articles for which a de facto name already exists. If we were to follow that line of reasoning, then arguably many other articles would have a different name. This, thus, is a matter of personal perspective ( POV), and not a basis for deciding the article's name ( WP:Title#Deciding an article title).
(2) Official name. Titling the article on the basis that Okeechobee is the name chosen by NOAA, is not substatiated by the facts: The claim is true if you look at the local Miami-South Florida NWS office's website ( [20]). If you look at the San Juan NWS office's website, you see this hurricane is called San Felipe II, no mention of Okeechobee at all ("Unfortunately, this building was destroyed by the San Felipe II Hurricane of September 13, 1928.") See: ( [21]). Its imporatnt to follow San Juan on this matter, and not Miami, for reasons stated above under 1(a)-1(c). More importantly, if we read the NHC's page itself ( [22]) the hurricane is listed as "San Felipe-Okeechobee" - yes, providing a clear preference for "San Felipe (II)" as the name by which the hurricane was known everywhere else outside of Florida. Incidentally, jdorge states "the NOAA Okeechobee page names it [Okeechobee]", but fails to provide a link.
(3) Disambiguation. Superficially, this may appear to be a very valid argument, but in reality it is not. The editor appears to forget that, either way, the title already includes the year of the hurricane ("1928"), ahead of everything else. Any ambiguity, thus, has been stopped on its tracks before you even get to say anything about the name of the hurricane, whether San Felipe II, or Okeechobee, or - for that matter - plain San Felipe. That is, even if the article was titled "1928 San Felipe hurricane" (as, the NHC does) the reader would already know the article is not about San Felipe I. So, no, there's no chance of confusion. This puported criteria, thus, is also a reflection of the editor's personal view on what the title of the article should be, and not the genuine reason to decide on the article's name ( WP:Neutral point of view#Article naming).
(4) The editor also took the time to point out that "Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water"." The question is, so what? Maybe this is supposed to be another reason to name the article Okeechobee???
Thus, the only sensible, WP:NPOV, argument in favor of Okeechobee would had been #2 - Official Name. However, as we can see, San Felipe II was, is, and continues to be the primary official name of the 1928 hurricane in all levels of authority at NOAA.
BTW, most people in the continental United States are quite familiar with that big body of water stuck in the middle of the Florida penninsula called Lake Okeechobee, it is hard to forget after been tested on it in middle school history and high school geography class. Okeechobee is only a local U.S. perspective for the hurricane called San Felipe II, possibly because it is easier in the U.S. to remember which hurricane it was if it is associated with the area in the mainland U.S. where it hit hardest. It is thus understandable that there be a personal preference for Okeechobee as the name of this hurricane (and thus the article) -- and especially when the other choice, San Felipe II, seems so much more foreign. However, such personal preferences are not valid in wikipedia, and in fact they are invalid ( WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism).
As such I have tagged the page accordingly until these small issues can be resolved. Regards, Mercy11 ( talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I am surprised you went into such detail, but despite that, I disagree. Calling it the "San Felipe hurricane" would be more biased toward Puerto Rico, but the greatest impact was in Florida (where there were the most deaths). In the NHC's list of deadliest hurricanes [23], they list Florida first under areas impacted by the hurricane. Additionally, the listing of all U.S. hurricanes, NOAA lists the storm's name as "Lake Okeechobee". I would be fine changing it to "1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane", if desired, but I would not like to see it as "1928 San Felipe hurricane". Hurricanehink ( talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
(1)such a title as yours is:
(a) confusing
(b)and not precise
(c)inconsistent with other hurricane articles.
(2)Additionally, just "San Felipe hurricane" would not be recognizable, since the NOAA calls it "Lake Okeechobee hurricane"
(3)people have no idea what San Felipe is (is it a place, a person who died, etc.).
(4)The current title (or slight variant thereof) really is
(a)recognizable (people know where Lake Okeechobee is),
(b)concise (just three words, as opposed to four),
(c)and consistent
(i) (most hurricane articles are named after locations,
(ii) and [are named after] whatever the NOAA calls it).
(d)In the grand scheme of things, an article title is not that important, it's the content inside that matters.
(5)I hope this discussion wouldn't turn you away from Wikipedia, we could use someone who is passionate about hurricanes!
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Fences& Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Closing rationale: The title stays as it is until there is consensus to move to another title. This may be disappointing and seem like a cop out, but I read this debate through carefully, and checked sources to confirm what was being said. Here's some of what I concluded, which may help a future debate on the matter: 1. The name of the hurricane is often "San Felipe" in Spanish sources, but this is the English Wikipedia, so we need to go by the common name in English sources. 2. San Felipe Segundo is very rarely used in reliable sources. [30] [31] [32] 3. "San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane" is used in some reliable sources, but only rarely. [33] [34] [35], and "Okeechobee-San Felipe hurricane" is barely used at all. 4. Okeechobee is used about three times as often as San Felipe in relation to the 1928 hurricane at Google Scholar and Google Books, and 15 times as often at Google News (searches were for Okeechobee+1928+hurricane vs "San Felipe"+1928+hurricane). 5. There was some cherry-picking of sources, but it is the prevalence of use in reliable sources that is most important; of course individual sources use different names. 6. Alternatives, some of them contemporary, include the "West Indian hurricane", the "West Indies hurricane", "The Hurricane of 1928", "Lake Okeechobee hurricane", "The Night Two Thousand Died", "Puerto Rico- Palm Beach hurricane", "1928 Florida hurricane", "Great Okeechobee Hurricane", "Storm 4 of 1928", etc. The lack of consensus here reflects a lack of consensus in the real world. Fences& Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
1928 Okeechobee hurricane → 1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane — Relisted.-- RegentsPark ( talk) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Requesting this article title change for the reasons presented under Note on name. In a nutshell, the current name represents a local view, not a worldwide view, of the subject; a proposed new name (such as, "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") would be more "neutral", i.e., not favor any region, country, tribe, landmark, geographical feature, etc; a new title would reflect a more balanced view of the cyclone, i.e., would incorporate the name of this hurricane as it is known in the the Caribbean (the name Okeechobee means nothing in the Caribbean); the addition requested in the new title (namely, the name "San Felipe II") is often encountered in the naming of the cyclone, and it is, in fact, how it was, and is, known by the authorities, namely NOAA). Please note that I am not suggesting belittling the use of the name "Okeechobee"; but simply emphasizing "San Felipe II" as this is the requested modification. Mercy11 ( talk) 00:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
What I am saying is: that the current title does not provide a worldwide view of the subject.
What I am saying is: that people in the Caribbean have never heard of Okeechobee (the name, the location, or the hurricane) before and that we should include the name San Felipe as a better way to describe the article for their benefit.
And what I am saying is: that any new title should incorporate the name Okeechobee as well so that users from the US will not be left out either. Hope this helps.
As for the name "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" that you referenced as not being used in the Internet, you may be right. But your implication is that that is a bad name. We need to understand the context in which I was presenting this: First, what we are saying is, let's make it a title that contains both "San Felipe" and "Okeechobee" in it. This means any variant of either one (San Felipe/San Felipe Segundo/San Felipe II/etc) and (Okeechobee/Lake Okeechobee/L.Okeechobee/etc). It could be as long as
or as short as
We also need to understand that before the title change was brought to this forum, it was discussed, quite comprehensively and for several days, in
THIS PLACE. One of the editors there who opposed the change to "San Felipe anything" commented that s/he "would be fine changing it to '1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane'". As such, I then proposed in this current forum that both his/her "Lake" part be added in addition to my request for "San Felipe" to be added. But we need to understand that this is not the only way the title can read and still please those of us that object to the current title. We are willing to compromise. If editors object to the "Lake" or the "Segundo" parts, I believe that can be accomodated too. In any event, eliminating those two parts will make the title shorter (undoubtedly pleasing some) while still keeping it unique, unambiguous, and precise (pleasing others). Hope this helps.
IF, however, what you are saying is that "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" would be even harder to find when googled because nobody else calls it that, then perfect!!! That means it would turn up only the wikipedia article thus making it Easiest to find yet, right? Regards,
Mercy11 (
talk) 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Can I just ask, how much is there to be gained if the title is moved? The article has been featured with the current title for four years. The title works with its conciseness and how it's easy to find. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Agree The current name hinders access to information for people interested in and knowledgeable about Puerto Rican history. I also wish to protest the language employed by Moni3 above, which is full of profanities and a direct attack of another Wikpedian. I would recommend cleaning up the profanities.-- Lawrlafo ( talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong agree Not sure what there is to debate. The links to official hurricane authorities provided above clearly indicate that San Felipe is just as valid a name to use for this article as Okeechobee. The double name (with accompanying redirects) seems like a no-brainer solution here. Zeng8r ( talk) 01:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose as per Moni3, Juliancolton, and Hurricanehink (above, from your first effort to push your preferred name, which is incorrectly placed at the top of the page, throwing the whole page out of chronological order). The proposed name is atrocious. While I'm not going to use the same language Moni3 used, her anger is thoroughly justified by Mercy's uninformed comments. Moni has written six featured articles on the Everglades (among her 17 featured articles), and accusing her of "drive-by" voting is extraordinarily arrogant, not to mention flat-out incorrect. As to the title, San Felipe Segundo Hurricane already redirects to the article and is mentioned in the lede, which satisfies Wikipedia:TITLE#Treatment of alternative names, the relevant portion of the article name policy. Your proposed name does not. Further, since this is the English Wikipedia,and the more common name in English is Okeechobee Hurricane, not San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, the article should remain at its current location. Horologium (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Just going to throw my $0.02 into this debate, I feel that the article should remain at its current location. We have redirects for a reason...If someone looking for the storm types in San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, they'll just be taken to this article, no big deal. This whole thing, IMO, is just like how society (at least in the United States) is going. Arguing over the smallest of things so that everyone can be seen equal, with no discrimination whatsoever. Seriously, is all this time really needed to decide what to name article which people spend less than two seconds reading the title of? Cyclonebiskit ( talk) 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree-San Felipe is the name by which it was known in Puerto Rico, the first large United States jurisdiction it hit in the Caribbean and in neighboring Caribbean nations that were impacted by it. Following President Kennedy's Dec. 15, 1961 speech stating that PR is part of America, in "America" it was first known as San Felipe, so that should be an essential part of the title of any article describing this particular storm. Having wrought much damage while known as San Felipe and before it hit Florida days after it was already known in JFK's America as San Felipe, is another reason I also fully agree with the proposal. Finally, on a lighter note, we should all be in agreement that NOAA's dision years back to give one proper name in alphabetical order to each hurricane has been one of its best ideas ever, perhaps other than installing Doppler radars! Pr4ever ( talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Note on the decision-making process of this discussion:
Invalid arguments in this discussion:
There clearly is more than one plausible title. I think "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" is too long of a title, and others such as "1928 Puerto Rico-Florida hurricane" or "1928 Greater Antilles-Florida hurricane" are just confusing (and certainly not recognizable). Here is an excerpt from WP:TITLE
There rarely are article titles that are that long that contain two possible names. It is invariably one title, with redirects from all other possible titles. If us at the tropical cyclone Wikiproject are biased for trying to maintain a stable and concise name, then surely the other side is biased for trying to force in an alternative name. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello all: It is my understanding that this forum will close in 1 day. It appears there is a reasonable amount of support for the name change; but it also appears that some contributors cannot fully support the change on the basis that the proposed title ("1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") is judged to be too long.
As such I would like to propose that as an alternative we use the following modified version of the originally proposed new title. From what I can gather, this is what most editors really want:
“ | 1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane | ” |
Why am I proposing this new title?
Why do I sense this?
(1) It includes both San Felipe and Okeechobee in it
(2) It uses the same format (year-name-"hurricane" word) as the other articles in the wiki
WP:TS project
(3) The current title does not include "Lake", so nothing is lost from the old title
(4) The "II" part (Note: this is the same as "Segundo") is not needed in the title since, with the presence of the year there ("1928"), it is no longer necessary to use "II" to differentiate this hurricane from the September 13, 1876, "
San Felipe I" hurricane
[3]
(5) And probably most important, this proposed title name is used by
NOAA to refer to this hurricane as it has been previously pointed out by some contributors.
[4]
[5]
We will, I propose, use the name "San Felipe" before the name "Okeechobee" in the title, since we rarely see this cited/written/documented as "Okeechobee/San Felipe".
Comments, if any, are welcomed.
Either way, thank you for your participation!
Regards,
Mercy11 (
talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I see this form this perspective: does changing the title enrich or detract from the encyclopedic mission? Does it add or remove encyclopedic information? Does it help or confuse the reader? Is it encyclopedic?
I think the answer to these questions is that the proposed title enriches the encyclopedic mission, it adds valuable information, and it clarifies exactly what it is meant, right in the title. It is a fine example of how to do compound titles right, and is fully supported by reliable sources (ie this is not pulled out of someone's ass).
However, lets accept the the "quantitative" argument as valid (something I do not advocate) for discussion's sake. Lets say the closing admin leans to the oppose !voters' argument. In other words, lets wikilawyer:
NPOV is a five pillar level policy. It is generally felt by the community that all policies and guidelines are secondary to the WP:5P level policies. So, even if we misconstrue WP:TITLE position's on English language sources to mean what the oppose !votes say it does, it is irrelevant to the overriding fact that since a neutral POV alternative to the title is in fact supported by THE English language reliable source, it is our duty as wikipedians to adopt it. The current title is not neutral. It reflects the inherent bias of the focus of English reliable sources on how the hurricane was viewed in the major English speaking area affected by it, this inherent bias cannot be reflected in wikipedia, because we - unlike reliable sources themselves - are held to the standards of a neutral point of view. Since there is overwhelming evidence that English language sources do support a more neutral alternative - in other words, that a neutral alternative is not a fringe view in itself - we have all the policy reasons in the world to adopt it, and police based objections are rendered quaint by the importance of NPOV over any other policy arguments.
I dislike arguments based on policy and not encyclopedic quality, but I felt we needed to address what I see as the oppose !votes' incorrect and narrow appreciation of wikipedia policy. THey should focus on the much more important issues of fighting systemic bias by means of upholding the five pillars than the narrow stylistic considerations raised. I remain unpersuaded that changing the title to the excellent, realiably sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic title proposed harms rather than advance our mission and enhances the quality of the encyclopedic entry. -- Cerejota ( talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm wrong, but my feeling is that if NOAA and other authoritative sources had referred to this storm as the "Okeechobee -Tampa or -New Orleans (or any other American locale) hurricane" and somebody suggested changing the name of the article to reflect this, it would have been changed without one dissenting voice, probably without any discussion at all. But look at this page! It sure seems to be that it's simply the potential use of a Spanish name that has people freaking out. Zeng8r ( talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)