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 | Archive 3 |
Someone on Reddit reported seeing someone on TV claiming to have heard someone say there have been 50+ fatalities in Bahamas. [1] FYI. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
From this local news report on 9/9:
This certainly isn't a reliable estimate, coming from unnamed sources to an unnamed reporter for a non-notable news service. Still, it will be interesting to see if mainstream organizations start talking about fatalities in the hundreds, or even thousands. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additionally, Hurricane Dorian is one of the stillest hurricanes, and people are bracing for impact for nothing as it weakens. I think that should added because it is very important information as it is barely moving and should be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If anyone would be interested, this storm will need a MH article due to its extreme complexity and its longevity (given it lasts a few more days). There will definitely be enough content for a separate article. Noah Talk 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The NDBC station Settlement Point GBI reported maximum sustained wind of 54 knots during the entire stationary period over GBI:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1
I was unable to locate other wind speeds. The comparison of modern hurricane strengths based on aircraft measurements with estimated wind speeds of earlier times is problematic. At a minimum, the inclusion of land based measurements is important.
The following text is a proposal:
The National Data Buoy Center reported maximum wind speed of 54 knots during the period when Dorian remained stationary over GBI.
JAQUINO ( talk) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What is that in mph or kph? ImtheOneKhaled ( talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The values I cited were reported in knots. 1 knot is equal to about 1.15 mph. JAQUINO ( talk) 08:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the meteorological history section needs to updated, as Dorian has been downgraded to a Category 2. It doesn't say this anywhere under the "current storm information" subsection. 2601:640:8880:3304:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 ( talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of the page, "Hurricane Dorian" should have a (2019) to the right of the name of it. Eradian ( talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As of now, two mainlanders have fallen off ladders preparing for the wind. Hard to call this Impact, since the wind hadn't even shown up yet. I can't cut and paste, so would someone else? And yeah, I get how anticipating the wind is partly to blame, so perceptions of Dorian sort of psychologically affected those guys. But it's hard to accuse a natural disaster of using preemptive mind tricks, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Also a Puerto Rican "trying to clean drains in advance", if anyone's looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt ( talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Currently, there is mention in the article of Dorian developing annular characteristics at landfall citing NHC discussion number 35, 11 PM Sunday September 1, which noted symmetry: "Satellite images show an [sic] symmetrical cyclone with a circular 10 n mi diameter eye and intense eyewall convection with lots of lightning being detected." However, this was noticed much earlier in discussion number 25, 11 PM Friday August 30, at the time of Dorian's initial rapid intensification to category 4 strength: "The eye has become very distinct and is surrounded by a very symmetric ring of deep convection." Unofficially, the hurricane's presentation remained symmetrical and highly stable on IR from the time of that discussion until the eyewall replacement cycle began Monday evening. The last mention of its symmetrical appearance was made in Advisory 37, 11 AM Monday September 2: "The hurricane remains quite symmetric and still exhibits a very well-defined eye, but there is somewhat less evidence of concentric eyewalls in Bahamas radar imagery."
My account, despite being very old, has not made enough edits to be auto-confirmed, and so I cannot edit the article myself. However, citing the advisories above, I would like to make the following edits:
After the sentence in the Meteorological History section: "Rapid intensification continued, and the storm eventually reached major hurricane status several hours later, on the same day." I would like to add the following sentence to the article: "Around this time, it was noted that Dorian had began developing annular characteristics, with a highly symmetrical region of deep convection surrounding its distinct eye."
I would like to replace the later sentence "Around that time, Dorian acquired annular characteristics, becoming highly symmetrical in appearance." with the sentence "Dorian continued to display annular characteristics, remaining highly symmetric around a distinct circular eye." or something of the like, that makes sense in context.
If someone could make these edits for me, I'd really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintuition ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706886/coast-guard-conducts-hurricane-dorian-response-efforts
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706619/coast-guard-responds-hurricane-dorian-bahamas
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Despite all of the news media saying that landfall occurred in the United States, I have not seen this reported by the NHC. Does the source used in this article say as much? I can not seem to find it. 20:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff ( talk • contribs)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am working on a collapsible watches/warnings table to summarize all the changes. It should be done in the next couple of days. Noah Talk 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that the table should be on a separate wiki page rather than this one. The Hurricane Dorian page is already excessive with the amount of information in it and that just adds to the clutter. Most people looking for general prep/impact/historical impacts of Dorian don't need the play by play of watches and warnings. INFOWeather (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
News Source (French): [1]
News Source (English): [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said.
[1]
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events. That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research. What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more no less. In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern. Many sources comment on the climate connection. "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters. I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..." If they say there's science at play, we should report it. Period. Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science. But you have to start th discussion somewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Some more possibilities to consider, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as @ INeedSupport mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain ( talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000: Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.
Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant". Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is "extremely powerful".
Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.
This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 ( talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Oldag07 ( talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic.Yes, that is my point exactly. GMG talk 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. Auree ★ ★ 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. [4] I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE. There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest. Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see 170.24.150.11 ( talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
oopsy 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine” 47.16.99.72 ( talk)
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. [5]. Cheers. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg ( talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? I remember ImTheOneKhaled being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane. 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
News Source (French): [1]
News Source (English): [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said.
[1]
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events. That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research. What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more no less. In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern. Many sources comment on the climate connection. "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters. I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..." If they say there's science at play, we should report it. Period. Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science. But you have to start th discussion somewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Some more possibilities to consider, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as @ INeedSupport mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain ( talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000: Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.
Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant". Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is "extremely powerful".
Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.
This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 ( talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Oldag07 ( talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic.Yes, that is my point exactly. GMG talk 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. Auree ★ ★ 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. [6] I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE. There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest. Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see 170.24.150.11 ( talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
oopsy 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine” 47.16.99.72 ( talk)
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. [7]. Cheers. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg ( talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? I remember ImTheOneKhaled being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane. 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Alabama wasn't impacted doesn't seem to affect the article or the storm, as other states besides Alabama weren't affected as well. DNVIC ( talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
it hit as a category 2 and likely did lots of damage. It should be an article. -- 98.116.128.15 ( talk) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC) See Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:23, 28 October 2020 (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 | Archive 3 |
Someone on Reddit reported seeing someone on TV claiming to have heard someone say there have been 50+ fatalities in Bahamas. [1] FYI. 67.164.113.165 ( talk) 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
From this local news report on 9/9:
This certainly isn't a reliable estimate, coming from unnamed sources to an unnamed reporter for a non-notable news service. Still, it will be interesting to see if mainstream organizations start talking about fatalities in the hundreds, or even thousands. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additionally, Hurricane Dorian is one of the stillest hurricanes, and people are bracing for impact for nothing as it weakens. I think that should added because it is very important information as it is barely moving and should be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled ( talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
If anyone would be interested, this storm will need a MH article due to its extreme complexity and its longevity (given it lasts a few more days). There will definitely be enough content for a separate article. Noah Talk 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The NDBC station Settlement Point GBI reported maximum sustained wind of 54 knots during the entire stationary period over GBI:
https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1
I was unable to locate other wind speeds. The comparison of modern hurricane strengths based on aircraft measurements with estimated wind speeds of earlier times is problematic. At a minimum, the inclusion of land based measurements is important.
The following text is a proposal:
The National Data Buoy Center reported maximum wind speed of 54 knots during the period when Dorian remained stationary over GBI.
JAQUINO ( talk) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
What is that in mph or kph? ImtheOneKhaled ( talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
The values I cited were reported in knots. 1 knot is equal to about 1.15 mph. JAQUINO ( talk) 08:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The last sentence of the meteorological history section needs to updated, as Dorian has been downgraded to a Category 2. It doesn't say this anywhere under the "current storm information" subsection. 2601:640:8880:3304:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 ( talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The title of the page, "Hurricane Dorian" should have a (2019) to the right of the name of it. Eradian ( talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
As of now, two mainlanders have fallen off ladders preparing for the wind. Hard to call this Impact, since the wind hadn't even shown up yet. I can't cut and paste, so would someone else? And yeah, I get how anticipating the wind is partly to blame, so perceptions of Dorian sort of psychologically affected those guys. But it's hard to accuse a natural disaster of using preemptive mind tricks, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Also a Puerto Rican "trying to clean drains in advance", if anyone's looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt ( talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Currently, there is mention in the article of Dorian developing annular characteristics at landfall citing NHC discussion number 35, 11 PM Sunday September 1, which noted symmetry: "Satellite images show an [sic] symmetrical cyclone with a circular 10 n mi diameter eye and intense eyewall convection with lots of lightning being detected." However, this was noticed much earlier in discussion number 25, 11 PM Friday August 30, at the time of Dorian's initial rapid intensification to category 4 strength: "The eye has become very distinct and is surrounded by a very symmetric ring of deep convection." Unofficially, the hurricane's presentation remained symmetrical and highly stable on IR from the time of that discussion until the eyewall replacement cycle began Monday evening. The last mention of its symmetrical appearance was made in Advisory 37, 11 AM Monday September 2: "The hurricane remains quite symmetric and still exhibits a very well-defined eye, but there is somewhat less evidence of concentric eyewalls in Bahamas radar imagery."
My account, despite being very old, has not made enough edits to be auto-confirmed, and so I cannot edit the article myself. However, citing the advisories above, I would like to make the following edits:
After the sentence in the Meteorological History section: "Rapid intensification continued, and the storm eventually reached major hurricane status several hours later, on the same day." I would like to add the following sentence to the article: "Around this time, it was noted that Dorian had began developing annular characteristics, with a highly symmetrical region of deep convection surrounding its distinct eye."
I would like to replace the later sentence "Around that time, Dorian acquired annular characteristics, becoming highly symmetrical in appearance." with the sentence "Dorian continued to display annular characteristics, remaining highly symmetric around a distinct circular eye." or something of the like, that makes sense in context.
If someone could make these edits for me, I'd really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintuition ( talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706886/coast-guard-conducts-hurricane-dorian-response-efforts
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706619/coast-guard-responds-hurricane-dorian-bahamas
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Despite all of the news media saying that landfall occurred in the United States, I have not seen this reported by the NHC. Does the source used in this article say as much? I can not seem to find it. 20:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff ( talk • contribs)
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am working on a collapsible watches/warnings table to summarize all the changes. It should be done in the next couple of days. Noah Talk 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
My opinion is that the table should be on a separate wiki page rather than this one. The Hurricane Dorian page is already excessive with the amount of information in it and that just adds to the clutter. Most people looking for general prep/impact/historical impacts of Dorian don't need the play by play of watches and warnings. INFOWeather (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
News Source (French): [1]
News Source (English): [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said.
[1]
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events. That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research. What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more no less. In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern. Many sources comment on the climate connection. "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters. I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..." If they say there's science at play, we should report it. Period. Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science. But you have to start th discussion somewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Some more possibilities to consider, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as @ INeedSupport mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain ( talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000: Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.
Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant". Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is "extremely powerful".
Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.
This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 ( talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Oldag07 ( talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic.Yes, that is my point exactly. GMG talk 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. Auree ★ ★ 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. [4] I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE. There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest. Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see 170.24.150.11 ( talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
oopsy 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine” 47.16.99.72 ( talk)
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. [5]. Cheers. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg ( talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? I remember ImTheOneKhaled being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane. 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 ( talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 ( talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. — 173.68.139.31 ( talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Victor Grigas ( talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
News Source (French): [1]
News Source (English): [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said.
[1]
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events. That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research. What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more no less. In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern. Many sources comment on the climate connection. "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters. I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..." If they say there's science at play, we should report it. Period. Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science. But you have to start th discussion somewhere. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Some more possibilities to consider, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
References
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim ( talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as @ INeedSupport mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain ( talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ LightandDark2000: Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.
Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? -- RoyGoldsmith ( talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant". Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is "extremely powerful".
Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.
This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 ( talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
Oldag07 ( talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic.Yes, that is my point exactly. GMG talk 17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. Auree ★ ★ 04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person. ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN ( talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. [6] I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN ( talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE. There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest. Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314 19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Oh, now I see 170.24.150.11 ( talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
oopsy 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine” 47.16.99.72 ( talk)
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 { talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. [7]. Cheers. -- Kuzwa ( talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg ( talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? I remember ImTheOneKhaled being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane. 47.16.99.72 ( talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Hurricane Dorian has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 ( talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA ( talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The fact that Alabama wasn't impacted doesn't seem to affect the article or the storm, as other states besides Alabama weren't affected as well. DNVIC ( talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
it hit as a category 2 and likely did lots of damage. It should be an article. -- 98.116.128.15 ( talk) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC) See Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)