![]() | This page 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. |
Make sure when uploading satellite images that they have no white half circle blocking the image. Thank you. Toonami1997 ( talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Maria went from a Category 1 hurricane to a Category 5 major hurricane in roughly one day (27 hours). Is this a record? Does anyone know where this places her in comparison to other hurricanes (Atlantic and/or elsewhere)? BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 00:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not a record, but it is noteworthy. This is an example of a storm bombing out, and it should be mentioned in the article. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I changed "explosive" to "rapid" in the first section because the explosive intensification article is not about tropical storms and the rapid intensification article is. Vox Sciurorum ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, Maria is the grandmommy of all of those storm names, thanks to Storm (novel). So... that was my one-minute tribute. Lol. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the hurricane has somehow (it's unclear exactly how it happened) knocked out the Puerto Rican radar. Currently, the only way to track the storm is satellite, or so I've been told. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? — Gestrid ( talk) 10:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
From the videos one can see that 3 events occurred within minutes of each other: 1. Landfall on Puerto rico 2. sunrise 3. the eye disappeared Is this coincidence of events at all unusual for hurricanes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6306:5000:dee:4592:11f8:1b76 ( talk) 13:34, September 20, 2017 (UTC–4)
|
Has anyone gotten any word as to the state of the NEXRAD on the island? I think it may be worth mentioning, IF the radar was taken out - which I don't know for sure. That'd make for an interesting time formulating short-term forecasts on the island. Bryan C. W. ( talk) 15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Should I add the TEMPLATE: Neutral point of view
*Meteorological history:
I find it dubious that Maria may have caused over $50 billion in damage. How could that happen? The most I see from Maria is $18 to $29 billion in overall damage. Angela Maureen ( talk) 17:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
|
There is plenty of coverage of Mayor Cruz's criticism of Trump and slow federal aid (in my opinion too much), but no followup references to those that are pleased with the response and critical of Cruz's statements (e.g. Long, Otero, etc.). Can we make this a bit less one-sided? ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't be the table "Deaths and damage by territory" in the "Aftermath" section instead of the "Impact in the Lesser Antilles" section? I think that the aforementioned table has more pertinence to the former section than to the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.121.149 ( talk) 06:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out that at present the opening sentence completely lacks the basic info of what/where/when. The text goes immediately into a bunch of superlatives, as though we all know what the subject is. I would have fixed, but I don't know anything about the subject. Pincrete ( talk) 18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Should the criticism of hurricane response section be moved to its own page? I feel that there's more than enough controversy (from the apparently slow response time to Trump's tweets on the matter to his visit to the island) to warrant its own page. -- Geekgecko ( talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Should Almost Like Praying be added to article? may be considered a significant charity single. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The introduction is terrible and confusing/distracting. Keep things like it being the 10th most this or the 5th most that for the stats part of the article. Also keep politics out of it. Puerto Rico is a beautiful island with lovely people, but a logistical nightmare to deal with since it is not on the mainland. Easy to point fingers especially when dealing with other simultaneous disasters. 106.51.22.29 ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
To everyone reading this (especially those still bent on increasing Maria's price tag to the maximum estimate(s) given), please, just stop. It is counter-productive, can end up confusing readers, and is a direct violation of the standards by which users have priced other tropical cyclones in the past. All of that notwithstanding, it amounts to edit warring, which is very disruptive and can result in sanctions or blocks. As I've said many times before (which I will repeat once again), before any official damage estimates or statistics are released for a storm, we use the lowest "reasonable" estimate given for a storm's total costs. For the storms in the hurricane basins Official estimates are those issued by the National Hurricane Center, the NOAA, or another official weather agency in the US in one of their reports or post-storm analysis (such as Tropical Cyclone Reports); all other estimates given before the release of such reports are strictly unofficial, regardless of their source (e.g. government officials, analytical experts, insurance companies, etc.). Because any and all statistics released before "official" reports are "unofficial," we cannot use the highest estimate given. All damage estimates given before the official storm reports are merely estimates, they all have a range of error associated with them, and those estimates are also usually given in ranges. In order to maintain consistency, and to avoid possible over-inflation of a storm's impacts, we generally use the lowest estimate available of a reasonable amount, one that includes the total cost. This means that we use the lowest available figure that includes BOTH insured and uninsured damages, and it also means that we don't use any outliers. For example, if one damage estimate is significantly lower than most of the other estimates given, we won't use it, and instead, we will use the next lowest estimate available that encompasses the total damage. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
For Hurricane Maria, the damage estimates given so far range from $15.9 billion to $91.2 billion. For those of you reading this (as of this writing), you've probably noticed that the current figure in use is the $51.2 billion estimate, with $50 billion of that alone coming from Puerto Rico. This is because the lowest figure available, $15.9 billion, is an outlier, lying far beneath the minimum estimate of $30 billion from most other insurance companies. Since there are so many minimum estimates for Puerto Rico that place the minimum insured damage at $45 billion, we decided to use a slightly higher figure, the $50 billion one (issued by an economist), which also nicely sits in the middle of the damage estimates given so far (coincidentally, of course). As for the $91.2 billion figure, even though it was issued by Puerto Rico's Governor (giving it some more weight and credibility), and even though it is possible, that figure has not yet been confirmed, so we can't use it. That estimate is also much higher than most of the other damage estimates given, so according to the standard practice we've been using for compiling damage estimates in the past, we can't really use it as the ultimate total. Unless it is confirmed by an official report from one of the official weather agencies (or governments) in the area, we can't use it. That is the same reason why we are not using the $150 billion (minimum) estimate given by the Governor of Texas for Hurricane Harvey. The official post-storm reports are usually release anywhere from a few to several months after the storm, so an official post-storm report for Hurricane Maria may not be released until December or February. If you want the actual/official damage, just be patient and wait. It is far better to wait for the official numbers than to use our own (often flawed) judgement and make the calls ourselves. And, we must also use common sense. Hurricane Harvey's damage estimates have all been consistently placed at a range above those issued for Hurricane Maria (heck, even Harvey's max. estimate of $200 billion stands far above the max. total given for Maria), which means that Harvey most likely caused a lot more damage in property/economic loss than Hurricane Maria did. Most of the figures issued by companies for Hurricane Harvey are higher than those that the same companies issued for Maria. While Hurricane Maria definitely devastated Puerto Rico and set its economy back by years (if not decades), you have to remember that Puerto Rico is much smaller than the rest of the US, and there is a lot more property that can be destroyed in Texas than can be destroyed in Puerto Rico. Texas has not been crippled by Harvey (unlike Puerto Rico), but this is because the (probable) heavier damage is not enough to take down Texas and its economy, while for a small territory like Puerto Rico, $91.2 billion (if confirmed) is worth a huge portion of that territory's economic output. Even the more conservative estimate, at $50 billion, would still be enough to devastate Puerto Rico. Given these facts, as of now, Harvey has probably caused more damage in Texas than Maria did in the Caribbean, so please stop increasing Maria's cost and ranking up the storm. Not only does that violate all of the things I mentioned above, it also goes against common sense. So for now, please just stop messing with the cost for Puerto Rico. If a better estimate comes out, we'll use it, and we will add the official total after the post-storm report is released. I'm also adding a piece of a conversation from the 2017 season's talk page to better reinforce what I've just explained above (in far more detail). LightandDark2000 ( talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Right now the seasonal damage chart presents the minimum estimates for the various storms; given that most of these are only accurate to two sig figs, it would be inappropriate to present more than two sig figs down in the table.
However, more pertinent is the question of how we should be presenting this data. Is it best to present it in the present manner, where we have a "minimum" estimate (i.e. it has done at least $149 billion as of the time of writing) or would it be better to present the data as a range, as we are not likely to get accurate damage totals for months, if not longer? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Blackbird013 (
talk)
08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I can not verify this source, but it indicates a government official has noted at least 256 documented deaths
[1] as of October 2nd while CNN is being told the death count is currently only at 45 Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). There is no indication I can find that cellular companies are seeking any solar solutions (which have less logistical problems) but it is possible they will catch on after being contacted by Alphabet and reading the news cited below.
A number of Solar energy companies are working together to try to provide solutions that can be implemented quickly and diversify power in P.R.. [2]
Elon Musk of Space X has offered to help build a permanent solution based on Solar power. [3]
A group of Puerto Ricans within the mainland are working on an emergency solution that involves portable solar generator systems with plans to provide help and training to install them. [4]
All of this combined with known problems in multiple articles concerning fuel distribution and cost problems points to P.R. power being largely solar in the future.
This article mentions the exchange between San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín and Trump. What it does not mention is that San Juan is arguably not only the capital but the port, so the things being shown may represent areas of Puerto Rico that are recovering the most quickly. [5] Blackbird013 ( talk) 08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no intention of attempting to edit the article. I have however spent many hours digging through information about what is actually going on. I'm leaving some of the most clear issues and information here for the main article writers to use. Blackbird013 ( talk) 08:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional source for death count dispute Miami Herald. Bodies are being collected in 69 hospitals which exceeds the number of deaths listed by CNN. This October 2nd article also confirms that deaths are not all being counted because the military is collecting the bodies. It is unclear whether the mass graves involve military personnel or are in addition to civilian dug mass graves. [6] Blackbird013 ( talk) 09:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC) This article also explains the discrepancies. If the body known or unknown has no death certificate it does not officially exist and can not be reported.
Why does only this hurricane warrant an "indirect deaths" column? This is not a distinction done for any others, and appears to be motivated beyond factual concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.38.114 ( talk) 19:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The aftermath section for Dominica is severely lacking in information. I realize that Puerto Rico, being the larger island and a US property, garners more media attention and has a greater following; neat work has been done on that section. However, Dominica suffered and continues to suffer from similar, if not worse levels of near-total destruction, with nation-wide food and water shortages. It would be awesome if some of you dedicated editors could give the section a little bit of love, as currently, these two sections are very disproportionate.
Some sources right off the bat:
Alternatively, we can use this talk section to compile sources for the Dominica aftermath. I would work on it myself, and probably will later on, but I'm currently swamped for time and busy with another project. Auree ★ ★ 09:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you guys sure we should take Dr Jeff Masters' blog as the estimate? It is unconfirmed by an official source, and it is a high-end estimate. ChowKam2002 ( talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about splitting the Puerto Rico section into its own article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico now that the season's over? The section is far too big, so having an article of its own would help reduce clutter on the main page a lot. Jdcomix ( talk) 14:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
To me, the first sentence has two superlative phrases that fail to convey what Hurricane Maria was. Currently it mentions that it was the 10th most intense hurricane and the most intense in 2017. Neither of those (again, to me) seem to be the crux of the article. For that first sentence, I think it would be best to either skip records altogether and mention that it was the 13th TC of the 2017 season (which I tried but apparently it wasn't liked), or else include the most visible records (one of the most costly, deadly, destructive...). As a side note, it might also be wise to mention Harvey somewhere in the lede, as the triple-punch of Harvey, Irma, and Maria is an important aspect of the coverage. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I had edited the infobox to agree with the more detailed table farther down in the article. Those edits were later reversed by MarioProtIV, though. If NOAA states $99 billion in damage, then why does the table show $103 billion? Which one is inaccurate, the infobox or the table? Academic Ninja ( talk) 07:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
We should use the number of distinct values to rank, not the number of contenders, as this is the practice of NHC as far as I can tell (they explicitly listed Hurricane Marie (2014) as tied as the then-fourth-strongest Pacific hurricane by winds, even though it is tied with most of the other Category 5 Pacific hurricanes by that measure and we have a tie between John and Patsy).-- Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV: By now you should know well that the one and only source of information on a TC’s meteorological core details is the advisories, until the TCR is released. The operational best track does not count under any circumstances.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
With the release of Maria’s TCR today, it seems like NHC opted to stick with the “official” number but also mentioned that there were an unknown amount, perhaps a thousand; of indirect deaths to the hurricane’s aftermath. Given that normally the deaths are reanalysed in TCR in past storms, it makes me think we should again drop the “official” range and go back to the 499 total from CNN. Despite the claims that this breaches WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:OR, I really don’t see how it is doing so; multiple sources including CNN (a reliable source generally), NYT and others have reported deaths from anywhere from 499 to 1,085. In fact, an article was published today based on the death undercounting which was the apparent result of data shortfall. I think we need to make a clear consensus on which totals we’re going to use which I will list below:
I’d suggest using the CNN value since it is probably the safest to go by and it is likely the recount will find numbers similar to CNN. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
After the results of the study we had been awaiting, it has been revealed that the official death toll of 64 is almost certainly redundant. My question now is what we should put as the death count. I would suggest using the 5,740 total as its more precise than a range, and we could include the range in the possible under counting of fatalities section. What do you think? Cooper 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Government of Puerto Rico welcomes the newly released Harvard University survey and we look forward to analyzing it," Carlos R. Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, said in a press release." This suggest that the government may analyze the report. Based kn this information, should we use the Harvard study total for now as it seems the GWU study may not be released for a while, and the government seems to be open to analyzing it? I don't want to start a big debate over this, but its just a suggestion based on this quote. Cooper 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
When will we see the results of the George Washington University study? Were they planed to be released this month? Cooper 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw someone added this to the top end of the death range, but this is incorrect. Indeed, it isn't even what the study said (though some sources misinterpreted/misrepresented the study to claim that).
The number comes from a survey of 3,000 people, who claimed that 38 people in their households died between the hurricane and the end of the year. Harvard then extrapolated that out to the entire population and subtracted the previous year's death rate from that figure. The margin of error was significant - 793 to 8,498 deaths are all "possible" results, and of course all of that assumes that the death rate didn't go up for other reasons year over year (which isn't certain, as 2015 -> 2016 saw an increase in the death rate as well). It's not any sort of official or even unoffical death count, its an estimate, and it doesn't even have one significant digit of accuracy. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 10:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hurricane María is not the worst hurricane to pass over Puwerto Rico, it is Huracán San Felipe II in 1928 wich has a higher category at the time of impact at the island and left 312 dead and over 500,000+ homeless. Sixty Minute Limit ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the Government's reluctance to accurately document fatalities in the aftermath of Maria, I think we should discard the "official" death toll especially with more and more sources questioning its validity. Department of Public Safety explicitly stated that the official toll only covers deaths that have been physically checked by the medical examiner in San Juan. Countless people died and were buried without being checked by him. This includes 900 certified cremations thrown under "natural causes". Using the CNN total of 499 direct/indirect deaths--obtained from from half of the island's funeral homes--is likely safest baseline to start from. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that none of the other estimates are even remotely reliable. Using the 499 number is problematic as it isn't verified by anyone, and it isn't how deaths are actually counted for disasters like this, meaning that it isn't comparable to the other numbers. Worse, comparing the overall number of deaths on the island year-to-year, we only saw +200 or so deaths from 2016 to 2017 over the two month period after the hurricane - and 2015 to 2016 saw an increase of +100 deaths. This would indicate a number that is well below the claims of "500 to 1000", and is much more in line with official estimates, as death rates on Puerto Rico had been going up even prior to the hurricane. This doesn't necessarily mean that the official estimates are correct, of course, but pending a recount of the dead, I don't think that we should report it as being "at least" 499 deaths, because that isn't verifiable, and the lower estimates are much, much lower than that. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with following this logic, or even reading it. Because of inappropriate methods of counts, along with bodies being buried on the spot and taken away (for safety reasons) by the military we are unlikely to ever have an official accurate count. What we do know is the reality that bodies were buried by family and friends due to lack of infrastructure, and that funeral homes were overflowing in spite of the military assisting in removing bodies. This has all been reported repeatedly with links provided here over time. The belief (not founded in hard data) that a population of over 3 million facing horrific devastation could not have as much as 1000 deaths is callous and inappropriate. No one can achieve an accurate count after so many bodies were removed, or ignored. Despite what some may think every life does matter, and regardless of how you present data if someone died due to lack of medical facilities or help and that aid was hindered by the hurricane damage and situation, then that death did indeed result from the hurricane. This entire disregard for the lives lost ignores hard data and relies on philosophy in an attempt to psychologically discount the significance of the damage of this hurricane and the decimation of a population. Per the official count if a body was not available to be certified by a single individual (sources have been linked) the person did not due to the hurricane. I would appreciate it if this is the last time I read these leaps of logic ignoring all available information in email notifications that once again someone is trying to discount the death toll or argue about why it must be lower than reasonable estimates. This incident can not be compared to any mainland hurricane event because no hurricane ever wiped out most of the mainland infrastructure. Blackbird013 ( talk) 09:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Though, CNN's isn't always reliable, no way can the death toll in Puerto Rico be only 68 due to the fact hat the hurricane made landfall with winds of 155 mph, the hurricane caused at least 99 billion and thirdly most news outlets investigations resulted in more than the official death toll; and as of December I believe they were doing a recount of the death toll. I do not know whether or not that resulted in the 68 deaths but as for now I believe the death toll is higher than 500 from what I learned about tropical cyclones and their paths. Swivel Here ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been seeing media reports misrepresenting this number.
The 1,427 number comes from a draft report from Puerto Rico, which itself comes from the number of excess deaths in the 4 month period after Hurricane Maria compared to the 2013-2016 average for the same time span. This isn't actually a new number; it was reported on back in June.
Some media reports are reporting this as "the government quietly admitted" to such and such many deaths; however, this is not the case.
The death rate is not constant from month to month or year to year; it went up from 2015 to 2016 as well, despite no major natural disaster occurring. Moreover, the death count was not consistent from month to month - we saw a surge of deaths in September followed by a dip in October (which could be indicative of some deaths occurring prematurely in September which would have otherwise happened in October, people on the brink of death who died a month early, basically, or it could be noise)).
Official disaster death tolls are not tabulated in this manner, which is why there is presently an official study being done to try and achieve a more definitive and accurate official death toll.
This is, unfortunately, a case of journalists misrepresenting/misunderstanding government data. That's not to say we shouldn't use this number, but we should be careful about directly saying it is hurricane deaths, as it is the number of excess deaths over a multi-year average, not the number of deaths which can be directly attributed to the hurricane. The government does believe it may be closer to the real number, though, per Pedro Cerame of the Puerto Rican government’s Federal Affairs Administration:
Given that the 1,427 number is indeed additional deaths in the four months after Hurricane Maria as compared to 2016, per this. It is thus likely the true number will likely be somewhat lower, as the death rate had been increasing in previous years as well - Puerto Rico's population is older than that of the continental US, resulting in a higher death rate overall due to aging.
We should be patient, especially in saying that it is "at least" or "greater than" this number. If we're giving minimums, we should not ever have to lower them; if we do, it means we were disseminating incorrect information. I think a range is probably the optimal solution here. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made some significant revisions to this section to try and streamline it and make it more encyclopedic. I've worked to include all of the relevant data in this section while making it parse better and removed some of the back-and-forthing. Given we have a newly updated official estimated death toll, I think it is good to spruce it up. It might be worth including more details on the official government study here, as it is what led to the official count. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The Death Toll should Specify that the overwhelming majority of the deaths indicated, were not DIRECTLY caused by the Hurricane. People who died Three, Four, Five or, Six months after the storm didn't die from the storm, they died from the after effects, eg their incompetent mayor, & island government which failed to prepare the island for the storm. It needs to state these deaths were Indirectly caused by the storm, otherwise we will be back here six months from now debating this issue. Say another 2000 people die between now, and then. Did those people die from the Hurricane too?-- Subman758 ( talk) 03:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose that we split the sections about Maria's impact on Puerto Rico into a new article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. This would shorten the length of this very long article and provide more room for detail in all aspects of the storm. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a preliminary number that's not based on actual death counts. For example there should be 3 numbers, those injured, those who died, and those who are missing. This is how death/injury tolls are given. Ergzay ( talk) 05:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Please stop engaging in edit warring. What would make you happy here besides a complete revert? Let's work to make this article better. Ergzay ( talk) 16:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Per Maria’s TCR: In Puerto Rico, the death toll is highly uncertain and the official number stands at 65, which includes an unknown number of indirect deaths. It should be noted that hundreds of additional indirect deaths in Puerto Rico may eventually be attributed to Maria’s aftermath pending the results of an official government review. Well, the review is done, and the PR government concludes the death toll was 2,975. For anyone questioning that total because it’s an estimate, remember that tropical cyclones can (and have killed) many thousands of people, such as Hurricane Katrina, which the NHC said “Especially for Louisiana and Mississippi, the number of direct fatalities is highly uncertain and the true number will probably not ever be known.” The death toll is like the Census when dealing with these large numbers. A good solid estimate from properly trained researchers is probably as good as it’s gonna get, which is more technical than the 6,000—12,000 deaths estimated from the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The reason there isn't really a WikiProject policy on these issues is that there never has been a problem about them. The vast majority of the time, official sources satisfy the verifiability, neutral point of view and original research content policies Wikipedia-wide. As noted by Hurricanehink, the Tropical Cyclone Report—the reference text of record in this subject area actually defers to a future government study; this study is what produced the figure of 2975 deaths.
Until there are reliable sources that call into question that number—and I haven't seen any brought up on this talk page—trying to remove/qualify the total figures would be giving undue weight to a minority view. Titoxd( ?!?) 08:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as there's much back and forth going on this, please discuss the replacement of the term "estimate" with "official estimate" and for that term to be used wherever the 3,057 or 2,975 numbers are used. In some cases the term "official estimate as of August 28th, 2018" can be used where appropriate. If you disagree please state your reasoning why. If you disagree please propose an alternate version if you can. Ergzay ( talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Fatalities should be differentiated (at least in the infobox) since there is some controversy over the indirect vs direct deaths due to the hurricane itself. For example the Hurricane Florence page says that there were 28 direct and 17 indirect fatalities. If the data for Florence is presented in that way, Maria should also show different causes of indirect vs direct deaths. I added a reliable source to show that the G.W. study death toll includes INDIRECT casualties of the sort researchers counted but users continue to remove the data. Right now I cannot re-add the proper data since it has been protected until October 2. Can someone who has higher editing privileges please re-insert the correct data? Yodabyte ( talk) 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the TIME article, but only very subtly. Note the last sentence of the following passage:
"Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005, was directly responsible for about 1,200 deaths, according to the National Hurricane Center. That does not include indirect deaths of the sort the George Washington researchers counted in Puerto Rico."
So it would seem that the GWU study did separate direct and indirect fatalities, but did not include those figures in the report. Undescribed ( talk) 22:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I changed Maria's deadliest hurricane since (year) to deadliest since Mitch in '98, since the death tolls that are currently up are 20 above Jeanne in '04. YellowSkarmory ( talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Being" in the lead part is unnecessary 158.182.228.147 ( talk) 01:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, change to "and is also the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Hurricane Jeanne in 2004"
219.76.15.16 (
talk)
03:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Want to add more words to the US Virgin Islands 172.84.252.24 ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add more text to US virgin islands page Starboy387373383 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Please Starboy387373383 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I will like to add more text to the page Starboy387373383 ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lead section, changed tenth-most-intense to tenth most intense 116.48.204.57 ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As a heads up, I boldly trimmed the lead section. The goal was a manageable length for an overview of Hurricane Maria. I don't think I removed any info per se, but just made things more general. Feel free to edit (it's not perfect), but consider if something is vital to add to the lead section.
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@ GoldGamer32: @ Super Cyclonic Storm Corona:
Either way, make sure the caption matches.
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
3,057 death toll hurricane maria Date: September 16, 2017 – October 2, 2017 2601:81:8581:8C0:15B8:7BF7:2909:81C8 ( talk) 09:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do we mention the monetary cost of the storm's damage in the lead, but not the number of lives lost? Seems like the wrong priority. Is there any objection to changing this? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on the US Virgin Islands, we have "peer" when we mean to have "power." Summer Ficarrotta ( talk) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Javiquinones.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jesseniaortiz3157.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've noticed that this page had some missing information to it's thing. 103.101.107.167 ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add following sentence to the bottom of 'Impact on Dominica' section. Post-hurricane relief aid that was brought to Dominica from regional partners and aiding countries additionally brought several non-native species that became established and which local stakeholders are still trying to remove in 2022. [1] VandenBurgMP ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The offical death toll in Puerto Rico was 64, the higher number cited in the article was calculated as excess deaths by a George Washington University study. I am not aware that "excess deaths" have been used to describe other disasters. At least both figures should be cited along with a description of the reason for the difference. Thank you. 47.134.211.161 ( talk) 12:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
As a subsection to "Criticism of US response", add the following text:
The lack of federal support raised questions from the media regarding the U.S. Government's dispensability in aiding its outlying territories in proportional levels to the contiguous state governments. A 2019 paper published by Willison, et al. titled Quantifying Inequities in US Federal Response to Hurricane Disaster in Texas and Florida Compared with Puerto Rico concluded that the federal response did "not align with storm severity or prevention and recovery needs and may substantially affect deaths and recovery rates." This discrepancy in aid coincided with President Trump's outward criticism of the "absurd" amount of funding being allocated to the island prompted a journalistic response that aimed at exposing the inequalities and inefficiencies of the federal response.
Further analysis concluded that media response from the U.S. mainland generally occurred along party alignment and general opinion of President Trump. For example, Fox News Network, regarded as a conservative-leaning major news network, reported on Puerto Rico far less than CNN and MSNBC, which were more vocal in their criticism of the Trump administration's response to the Hurricane. Moreover, national media coverage of Puerto Rico after Maria was significantly less than coverage of Harvey and Irma's aftermath in Texas and Florida, prompting questions of the US media's indispensability to report on Puerto Rico. An uptick in reporting on the island's situation coincided with the Trump administration's lack of response in federal relief aid, thus directing the overarching narrative. As a result, a quarter of national headlines discussing the situation in Puerto Rico in the two-week post-landfall period included "Trump". Most key reporting on Puerto Rico's relief from the mainland US, however, was conducted by individual reporters and smaller independent media companies who frequently challenged the local and federal government's policy, contributing to the development of public discontent with the governmental response. A 2017 report from the MIT Media Lab concluded that "the language used to discuss Maria was far more political with several mentions of “Congress,” “Senate,” “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “debt” or “tax.” Coverage of Harvey’s floods near Houston, on the other hand, focused more heavily on the storm’s toll on people, with high usage of terms like “victim” and “family.” In contrast to the national non-reaction to the unfolding humanitarian crisis, local, Spanish-speaking outlets, like Telemundo and Univision, immediately mobilized several reporting teams to cover the crisis, primarily focusing their content on relief and aid opportunities as opposed to fueling political banter. The disparity between national news and local media's coverage was seen by many as a representation of the national media's inherent biases and coverage along the lines of cultural affinity. A 2017 Washington Post article compared the experience of predominantly-black residents in Flint, Michigan after the water crisis they experienced to the reality of Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria, aiming to tie the lack of national attention to the racial biases inherent in the American media's psyche.
The lack of media and governmental response to the island's needs prompted questions about Puerto Rico's political status. A New York Times poll conducted in the months preceding the Hurricane showed half of Americans did not know Puerto Ricans were American citizens. The debate centered around the Jones Act, which prompted the local government to petition the United States government to temporarily lift it during the Hurricane's direct relief aftermath, further engendered feelings of discontent for Puerto Rico's de facto colonial status. Local media portrayals frequently regarded the United States as a modern imperial superpower, which retained its colonial possessions and subjected them to unequal standards of political consideration in comparison to their counterparts on the mainland. Documentaries like Aftershocks of Disaster: Puerto Rico Before and After the Storm (Haymarket Books, 2019), released Aug 2020, highlighted the grassroots movement to foster self-sustainability in the absence of an adequate governmental response. The documentary touched on the displacement of Puerto Ricans to the US mainland in the aftermath of the hurricane, as well as the resiliency and community efforts of Puerto Ricans who remained on the island. With respect to the response from the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland, the arts became a vehicle for the amplification of public discontent with the island's political status.
Felipealborsharvard (
talk)
22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I would like to add information regarding Military and Foreign Military response to the Hurricane, specifically in regards to Puerto Rico. To include examples of Aid rendered, Supply's delivered, Vessels and Heavy equipment (types/Names), as well as dates and manpower Figures to back them. There is what I consider to be interesting information regarding type and number of Missions undertaken and by which Specific units. I would like to use the example of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster relief page which has a subsection on Military and Foreign Military response to the event. In this case it would be folded into the aftermath tab subsection Puerto Rico Aftermath on the main Hurricane Maria Page; titled Military and International Response. Thank you for your time!
Below links to some of the sources I plan to use: - https://www.usace.army.mil/About/History/Historical-Vignettes/Relief-and-Recovery/154-Hurricane-Maria/ - https://centropr-archive.hunter.cuny.edu/centrovoices/current-affairs/military-mission-puerto-rico-after-hurricane-was-better-critics-say#:~:text=The%20military%20brought%20manpower%20to,affairs%20teams%20and%20tower%20climbers. - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2967.html - https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0917_hurricane-maria/ - https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/1335933/over-11000-dod-personnel-aid-puerto-rico-hurricane-relief-efforts/ FNPilot ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a 1 image and add more information
Template:
{{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of the 2017}}
112.209.26.43 (
talk)
02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Diff:
− | {{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of 2017}} | + | {{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of the 2017}} |
add a the in the Diff 112.209.26.43 ( talk) 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a new infobox
{{Infobox weather event
| name = Hurricane Maria
| image = Hurricane Maria 2017-09-19 1742Z (gallery).jpg
| caption = Hurricane Maria near peak intensity to the southeast of [[Puerto Rico]] on September 19
| formed = September 16, 2017
| dissipated = October 2, 2017
| extratropical = September 30
| basin = Atl
}}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
| winds = 150
| pressure = 908
}}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
| year = 2017
| fatalities = 3,059 total
| damage = 9160600000
| damage-suffix = [[List of costliest tropical cyclones|Fourth-costliest]] [[tropical cyclone]] on record; costliest in [[Dominica]]n and [[History of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rican]] history
| areas = {{flatlist|
* [[Bahamas]]
* [[South Florida]], [[Central Florida]] and the [[Florida Panhandle]]
* [[Cuba]]
* [[Louisiana]] (especially [[Greater New Orleans]])
* [[Mississippi]]
* [[Alabama]]
* most of the [[Eastern United States]]
* [[Eastern Canada]]
}}
| ibtracs =
| refs =
}}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
| season = [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season]]
| related = <div class="center">{{Hurricane Maria related}}</div>
}}
122.2.114.203 (
talk)
03:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix a 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season 122.2.114.203 ( talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | + | |ibtracs = 2017260N12310
| refs = |
Add a ibtracs id 2017260N12310 in the Infobox
![]() | This page 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. |
Make sure when uploading satellite images that they have no white half circle blocking the image. Thank you. Toonami1997 ( talk) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Maria went from a Category 1 hurricane to a Category 5 major hurricane in roughly one day (27 hours). Is this a record? Does anyone know where this places her in comparison to other hurricanes (Atlantic and/or elsewhere)? BrendonTheWizard ( talk) 00:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Definitely not a record, but it is noteworthy. This is an example of a storm bombing out, and it should be mentioned in the article. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 05:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I changed "explosive" to "rapid" in the first section because the explosive intensification article is not about tropical storms and the rapid intensification article is. Vox Sciurorum ( talk) 00:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know, Maria is the grandmommy of all of those storm names, thanks to Storm (novel). So... that was my one-minute tribute. Lol. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 05:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently, the hurricane has somehow (it's unclear exactly how it happened) knocked out the Puerto Rican radar. Currently, the only way to track the storm is satellite, or so I've been told. Shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? — Gestrid ( talk) 10:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
From the videos one can see that 3 events occurred within minutes of each other: 1. Landfall on Puerto rico 2. sunrise 3. the eye disappeared Is this coincidence of events at all unusual for hurricanes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6306:5000:dee:4592:11f8:1b76 ( talk) 13:34, September 20, 2017 (UTC–4)
|
Has anyone gotten any word as to the state of the NEXRAD on the island? I think it may be worth mentioning, IF the radar was taken out - which I don't know for sure. That'd make for an interesting time formulating short-term forecasts on the island. Bryan C. W. ( talk) 15:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Should I add the TEMPLATE: Neutral point of view
*Meteorological history:
I find it dubious that Maria may have caused over $50 billion in damage. How could that happen? The most I see from Maria is $18 to $29 billion in overall damage. Angela Maureen ( talk) 17:36, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
|
There is plenty of coverage of Mayor Cruz's criticism of Trump and slow federal aid (in my opinion too much), but no followup references to those that are pleased with the response and critical of Cruz's statements (e.g. Long, Otero, etc.). Can we make this a bit less one-sided? ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't be the table "Deaths and damage by territory" in the "Aftermath" section instead of the "Impact in the Lesser Antilles" section? I think that the aforementioned table has more pertinence to the former section than to the latter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.53.121.149 ( talk) 06:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to point out that at present the opening sentence completely lacks the basic info of what/where/when. The text goes immediately into a bunch of superlatives, as though we all know what the subject is. I would have fixed, but I don't know anything about the subject. Pincrete ( talk) 18:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Should the criticism of hurricane response section be moved to its own page? I feel that there's more than enough controversy (from the apparently slow response time to Trump's tweets on the matter to his visit to the island) to warrant its own page. -- Geekgecko ( talk) 03:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Should Almost Like Praying be added to article? may be considered a significant charity single. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 20:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The introduction is terrible and confusing/distracting. Keep things like it being the 10th most this or the 5th most that for the stats part of the article. Also keep politics out of it. Puerto Rico is a beautiful island with lovely people, but a logistical nightmare to deal with since it is not on the mainland. Easy to point fingers especially when dealing with other simultaneous disasters. 106.51.22.29 ( talk) 14:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
To everyone reading this (especially those still bent on increasing Maria's price tag to the maximum estimate(s) given), please, just stop. It is counter-productive, can end up confusing readers, and is a direct violation of the standards by which users have priced other tropical cyclones in the past. All of that notwithstanding, it amounts to edit warring, which is very disruptive and can result in sanctions or blocks. As I've said many times before (which I will repeat once again), before any official damage estimates or statistics are released for a storm, we use the lowest "reasonable" estimate given for a storm's total costs. For the storms in the hurricane basins Official estimates are those issued by the National Hurricane Center, the NOAA, or another official weather agency in the US in one of their reports or post-storm analysis (such as Tropical Cyclone Reports); all other estimates given before the release of such reports are strictly unofficial, regardless of their source (e.g. government officials, analytical experts, insurance companies, etc.). Because any and all statistics released before "official" reports are "unofficial," we cannot use the highest estimate given. All damage estimates given before the official storm reports are merely estimates, they all have a range of error associated with them, and those estimates are also usually given in ranges. In order to maintain consistency, and to avoid possible over-inflation of a storm's impacts, we generally use the lowest estimate available of a reasonable amount, one that includes the total cost. This means that we use the lowest available figure that includes BOTH insured and uninsured damages, and it also means that we don't use any outliers. For example, if one damage estimate is significantly lower than most of the other estimates given, we won't use it, and instead, we will use the next lowest estimate available that encompasses the total damage. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
For Hurricane Maria, the damage estimates given so far range from $15.9 billion to $91.2 billion. For those of you reading this (as of this writing), you've probably noticed that the current figure in use is the $51.2 billion estimate, with $50 billion of that alone coming from Puerto Rico. This is because the lowest figure available, $15.9 billion, is an outlier, lying far beneath the minimum estimate of $30 billion from most other insurance companies. Since there are so many minimum estimates for Puerto Rico that place the minimum insured damage at $45 billion, we decided to use a slightly higher figure, the $50 billion one (issued by an economist), which also nicely sits in the middle of the damage estimates given so far (coincidentally, of course). As for the $91.2 billion figure, even though it was issued by Puerto Rico's Governor (giving it some more weight and credibility), and even though it is possible, that figure has not yet been confirmed, so we can't use it. That estimate is also much higher than most of the other damage estimates given, so according to the standard practice we've been using for compiling damage estimates in the past, we can't really use it as the ultimate total. Unless it is confirmed by an official report from one of the official weather agencies (or governments) in the area, we can't use it. That is the same reason why we are not using the $150 billion (minimum) estimate given by the Governor of Texas for Hurricane Harvey. The official post-storm reports are usually release anywhere from a few to several months after the storm, so an official post-storm report for Hurricane Maria may not be released until December or February. If you want the actual/official damage, just be patient and wait. It is far better to wait for the official numbers than to use our own (often flawed) judgement and make the calls ourselves. And, we must also use common sense. Hurricane Harvey's damage estimates have all been consistently placed at a range above those issued for Hurricane Maria (heck, even Harvey's max. estimate of $200 billion stands far above the max. total given for Maria), which means that Harvey most likely caused a lot more damage in property/economic loss than Hurricane Maria did. Most of the figures issued by companies for Hurricane Harvey are higher than those that the same companies issued for Maria. While Hurricane Maria definitely devastated Puerto Rico and set its economy back by years (if not decades), you have to remember that Puerto Rico is much smaller than the rest of the US, and there is a lot more property that can be destroyed in Texas than can be destroyed in Puerto Rico. Texas has not been crippled by Harvey (unlike Puerto Rico), but this is because the (probable) heavier damage is not enough to take down Texas and its economy, while for a small territory like Puerto Rico, $91.2 billion (if confirmed) is worth a huge portion of that territory's economic output. Even the more conservative estimate, at $50 billion, would still be enough to devastate Puerto Rico. Given these facts, as of now, Harvey has probably caused more damage in Texas than Maria did in the Caribbean, so please stop increasing Maria's cost and ranking up the storm. Not only does that violate all of the things I mentioned above, it also goes against common sense. So for now, please just stop messing with the cost for Puerto Rico. If a better estimate comes out, we'll use it, and we will add the official total after the post-storm report is released. I'm also adding a piece of a conversation from the 2017 season's talk page to better reinforce what I've just explained above (in far more detail). LightandDark2000 ( talk) 22:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Right now the seasonal damage chart presents the minimum estimates for the various storms; given that most of these are only accurate to two sig figs, it would be inappropriate to present more than two sig figs down in the table.
However, more pertinent is the question of how we should be presenting this data. Is it best to present it in the present manner, where we have a "minimum" estimate (i.e. it has done at least $149 billion as of the time of writing) or would it be better to present the data as a range, as we are not likely to get accurate damage totals for months, if not longer? Titanium Dragon ( talk) 05:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Blackbird013 (
talk)
08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I can not verify this source, but it indicates a government official has noted at least 256 documented deaths
[1] as of October 2nd while CNN is being told the death count is currently only at 45 Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page). There is no indication I can find that cellular companies are seeking any solar solutions (which have less logistical problems) but it is possible they will catch on after being contacted by Alphabet and reading the news cited below.
A number of Solar energy companies are working together to try to provide solutions that can be implemented quickly and diversify power in P.R.. [2]
Elon Musk of Space X has offered to help build a permanent solution based on Solar power. [3]
A group of Puerto Ricans within the mainland are working on an emergency solution that involves portable solar generator systems with plans to provide help and training to install them. [4]
All of this combined with known problems in multiple articles concerning fuel distribution and cost problems points to P.R. power being largely solar in the future.
This article mentions the exchange between San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín and Trump. What it does not mention is that San Juan is arguably not only the capital but the port, so the things being shown may represent areas of Puerto Rico that are recovering the most quickly. [5] Blackbird013 ( talk) 08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I have no intention of attempting to edit the article. I have however spent many hours digging through information about what is actually going on. I'm leaving some of the most clear issues and information here for the main article writers to use. Blackbird013 ( talk) 08:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Additional source for death count dispute Miami Herald. Bodies are being collected in 69 hospitals which exceeds the number of deaths listed by CNN. This October 2nd article also confirms that deaths are not all being counted because the military is collecting the bodies. It is unclear whether the mass graves involve military personnel or are in addition to civilian dug mass graves. [6] Blackbird013 ( talk) 09:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC) This article also explains the discrepancies. If the body known or unknown has no death certificate it does not officially exist and can not be reported.
Why does only this hurricane warrant an "indirect deaths" column? This is not a distinction done for any others, and appears to be motivated beyond factual concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.38.114 ( talk) 19:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The aftermath section for Dominica is severely lacking in information. I realize that Puerto Rico, being the larger island and a US property, garners more media attention and has a greater following; neat work has been done on that section. However, Dominica suffered and continues to suffer from similar, if not worse levels of near-total destruction, with nation-wide food and water shortages. It would be awesome if some of you dedicated editors could give the section a little bit of love, as currently, these two sections are very disproportionate.
Some sources right off the bat:
Alternatively, we can use this talk section to compile sources for the Dominica aftermath. I would work on it myself, and probably will later on, but I'm currently swamped for time and busy with another project. Auree ★ ★ 09:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you guys sure we should take Dr Jeff Masters' blog as the estimate? It is unconfirmed by an official source, and it is a high-end estimate. ChowKam2002 ( talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
How do you guys feel about splitting the Puerto Rico section into its own article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico now that the season's over? The section is far too big, so having an article of its own would help reduce clutter on the main page a lot. Jdcomix ( talk) 14:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
To me, the first sentence has two superlative phrases that fail to convey what Hurricane Maria was. Currently it mentions that it was the 10th most intense hurricane and the most intense in 2017. Neither of those (again, to me) seem to be the crux of the article. For that first sentence, I think it would be best to either skip records altogether and mention that it was the 13th TC of the 2017 season (which I tried but apparently it wasn't liked), or else include the most visible records (one of the most costly, deadly, destructive...). As a side note, it might also be wise to mention Harvey somewhere in the lede, as the triple-punch of Harvey, Irma, and Maria is an important aspect of the coverage. ~ Araignee ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I had edited the infobox to agree with the more detailed table farther down in the article. Those edits were later reversed by MarioProtIV, though. If NOAA states $99 billion in damage, then why does the table show $103 billion? Which one is inaccurate, the infobox or the table? Academic Ninja ( talk) 07:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
We should use the number of distinct values to rank, not the number of contenders, as this is the practice of NHC as far as I can tell (they explicitly listed Hurricane Marie (2014) as tied as the then-fourth-strongest Pacific hurricane by winds, even though it is tied with most of the other Category 5 Pacific hurricanes by that measure and we have a tie between John and Patsy).-- Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@ MarioProtIV: By now you should know well that the one and only source of information on a TC’s meteorological core details is the advisories, until the TCR is released. The operational best track does not count under any circumstances.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
With the release of Maria’s TCR today, it seems like NHC opted to stick with the “official” number but also mentioned that there were an unknown amount, perhaps a thousand; of indirect deaths to the hurricane’s aftermath. Given that normally the deaths are reanalysed in TCR in past storms, it makes me think we should again drop the “official” range and go back to the 499 total from CNN. Despite the claims that this breaches WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:OR, I really don’t see how it is doing so; multiple sources including CNN (a reliable source generally), NYT and others have reported deaths from anywhere from 499 to 1,085. In fact, an article was published today based on the death undercounting which was the apparent result of data shortfall. I think we need to make a clear consensus on which totals we’re going to use which I will list below:
I’d suggest using the CNN value since it is probably the safest to go by and it is likely the recount will find numbers similar to CNN. -- MarioProtIV ( talk/ contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
After the results of the study we had been awaiting, it has been revealed that the official death toll of 64 is almost certainly redundant. My question now is what we should put as the death count. I would suggest using the 5,740 total as its more precise than a range, and we could include the range in the possible under counting of fatalities section. What do you think? Cooper 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
"The Government of Puerto Rico welcomes the newly released Harvard University survey and we look forward to analyzing it," Carlos R. Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, said in a press release." This suggest that the government may analyze the report. Based kn this information, should we use the Harvard study total for now as it seems the GWU study may not be released for a while, and the government seems to be open to analyzing it? I don't want to start a big debate over this, but its just a suggestion based on this quote. Cooper 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
When will we see the results of the George Washington University study? Were they planed to be released this month? Cooper 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I saw someone added this to the top end of the death range, but this is incorrect. Indeed, it isn't even what the study said (though some sources misinterpreted/misrepresented the study to claim that).
The number comes from a survey of 3,000 people, who claimed that 38 people in their households died between the hurricane and the end of the year. Harvard then extrapolated that out to the entire population and subtracted the previous year's death rate from that figure. The margin of error was significant - 793 to 8,498 deaths are all "possible" results, and of course all of that assumes that the death rate didn't go up for other reasons year over year (which isn't certain, as 2015 -> 2016 saw an increase in the death rate as well). It's not any sort of official or even unoffical death count, its an estimate, and it doesn't even have one significant digit of accuracy. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 10:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Hurricane María is not the worst hurricane to pass over Puwerto Rico, it is Huracán San Felipe II in 1928 wich has a higher category at the time of impact at the island and left 312 dead and over 500,000+ homeless. Sixty Minute Limit ( talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Given the Government's reluctance to accurately document fatalities in the aftermath of Maria, I think we should discard the "official" death toll especially with more and more sources questioning its validity. Department of Public Safety explicitly stated that the official toll only covers deaths that have been physically checked by the medical examiner in San Juan. Countless people died and were buried without being checked by him. This includes 900 certified cremations thrown under "natural causes". Using the CNN total of 499 direct/indirect deaths--obtained from from half of the island's funeral homes--is likely safest baseline to start from. ~ Cyclonebiskit ( chat) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
The problem here is that none of the other estimates are even remotely reliable. Using the 499 number is problematic as it isn't verified by anyone, and it isn't how deaths are actually counted for disasters like this, meaning that it isn't comparable to the other numbers. Worse, comparing the overall number of deaths on the island year-to-year, we only saw +200 or so deaths from 2016 to 2017 over the two month period after the hurricane - and 2015 to 2016 saw an increase of +100 deaths. This would indicate a number that is well below the claims of "500 to 1000", and is much more in line with official estimates, as death rates on Puerto Rico had been going up even prior to the hurricane. This doesn't necessarily mean that the official estimates are correct, of course, but pending a recount of the dead, I don't think that we should report it as being "at least" 499 deaths, because that isn't verifiable, and the lower estimates are much, much lower than that. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with following this logic, or even reading it. Because of inappropriate methods of counts, along with bodies being buried on the spot and taken away (for safety reasons) by the military we are unlikely to ever have an official accurate count. What we do know is the reality that bodies were buried by family and friends due to lack of infrastructure, and that funeral homes were overflowing in spite of the military assisting in removing bodies. This has all been reported repeatedly with links provided here over time. The belief (not founded in hard data) that a population of over 3 million facing horrific devastation could not have as much as 1000 deaths is callous and inappropriate. No one can achieve an accurate count after so many bodies were removed, or ignored. Despite what some may think every life does matter, and regardless of how you present data if someone died due to lack of medical facilities or help and that aid was hindered by the hurricane damage and situation, then that death did indeed result from the hurricane. This entire disregard for the lives lost ignores hard data and relies on philosophy in an attempt to psychologically discount the significance of the damage of this hurricane and the decimation of a population. Per the official count if a body was not available to be certified by a single individual (sources have been linked) the person did not due to the hurricane. I would appreciate it if this is the last time I read these leaps of logic ignoring all available information in email notifications that once again someone is trying to discount the death toll or argue about why it must be lower than reasonable estimates. This incident can not be compared to any mainland hurricane event because no hurricane ever wiped out most of the mainland infrastructure. Blackbird013 ( talk) 09:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Though, CNN's isn't always reliable, no way can the death toll in Puerto Rico be only 68 due to the fact hat the hurricane made landfall with winds of 155 mph, the hurricane caused at least 99 billion and thirdly most news outlets investigations resulted in more than the official death toll; and as of December I believe they were doing a recount of the death toll. I do not know whether or not that resulted in the 68 deaths but as for now I believe the death toll is higher than 500 from what I learned about tropical cyclones and their paths. Swivel Here ( talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I've been seeing media reports misrepresenting this number.
The 1,427 number comes from a draft report from Puerto Rico, which itself comes from the number of excess deaths in the 4 month period after Hurricane Maria compared to the 2013-2016 average for the same time span. This isn't actually a new number; it was reported on back in June.
Some media reports are reporting this as "the government quietly admitted" to such and such many deaths; however, this is not the case.
The death rate is not constant from month to month or year to year; it went up from 2015 to 2016 as well, despite no major natural disaster occurring. Moreover, the death count was not consistent from month to month - we saw a surge of deaths in September followed by a dip in October (which could be indicative of some deaths occurring prematurely in September which would have otherwise happened in October, people on the brink of death who died a month early, basically, or it could be noise)).
Official disaster death tolls are not tabulated in this manner, which is why there is presently an official study being done to try and achieve a more definitive and accurate official death toll.
This is, unfortunately, a case of journalists misrepresenting/misunderstanding government data. That's not to say we shouldn't use this number, but we should be careful about directly saying it is hurricane deaths, as it is the number of excess deaths over a multi-year average, not the number of deaths which can be directly attributed to the hurricane. The government does believe it may be closer to the real number, though, per Pedro Cerame of the Puerto Rican government’s Federal Affairs Administration:
Given that the 1,427 number is indeed additional deaths in the four months after Hurricane Maria as compared to 2016, per this. It is thus likely the true number will likely be somewhat lower, as the death rate had been increasing in previous years as well - Puerto Rico's population is older than that of the continental US, resulting in a higher death rate overall due to aging.
We should be patient, especially in saying that it is "at least" or "greater than" this number. If we're giving minimums, we should not ever have to lower them; if we do, it means we were disseminating incorrect information. I think a range is probably the optimal solution here. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made some significant revisions to this section to try and streamline it and make it more encyclopedic. I've worked to include all of the relevant data in this section while making it parse better and removed some of the back-and-forthing. Given we have a newly updated official estimated death toll, I think it is good to spruce it up. It might be worth including more details on the official government study here, as it is what led to the official count. Titanium Dragon ( talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
The Death Toll should Specify that the overwhelming majority of the deaths indicated, were not DIRECTLY caused by the Hurricane. People who died Three, Four, Five or, Six months after the storm didn't die from the storm, they died from the after effects, eg their incompetent mayor, & island government which failed to prepare the island for the storm. It needs to state these deaths were Indirectly caused by the storm, otherwise we will be back here six months from now debating this issue. Say another 2000 people die between now, and then. Did those people die from the Hurricane too?-- Subman758 ( talk) 03:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose that we split the sections about Maria's impact on Puerto Rico into a new article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. This would shorten the length of this very long article and provide more room for detail in all aspects of the storm. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a preliminary number that's not based on actual death counts. For example there should be 3 numbers, those injured, those who died, and those who are missing. This is how death/injury tolls are given. Ergzay ( talk) 05:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
@ Jasper Deng: Please stop engaging in edit warring. What would make you happy here besides a complete revert? Let's work to make this article better. Ergzay ( talk) 16:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Per Maria’s TCR: In Puerto Rico, the death toll is highly uncertain and the official number stands at 65, which includes an unknown number of indirect deaths. It should be noted that hundreds of additional indirect deaths in Puerto Rico may eventually be attributed to Maria’s aftermath pending the results of an official government review. Well, the review is done, and the PR government concludes the death toll was 2,975. For anyone questioning that total because it’s an estimate, remember that tropical cyclones can (and have killed) many thousands of people, such as Hurricane Katrina, which the NHC said “Especially for Louisiana and Mississippi, the number of direct fatalities is highly uncertain and the true number will probably not ever be known.” The death toll is like the Census when dealing with these large numbers. A good solid estimate from properly trained researchers is probably as good as it’s gonna get, which is more technical than the 6,000—12,000 deaths estimated from the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Hurricanehink mobile ( talk) 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
The reason there isn't really a WikiProject policy on these issues is that there never has been a problem about them. The vast majority of the time, official sources satisfy the verifiability, neutral point of view and original research content policies Wikipedia-wide. As noted by Hurricanehink, the Tropical Cyclone Report—the reference text of record in this subject area actually defers to a future government study; this study is what produced the figure of 2975 deaths.
Until there are reliable sources that call into question that number—and I haven't seen any brought up on this talk page—trying to remove/qualify the total figures would be giving undue weight to a minority view. Titoxd( ?!?) 08:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Seeing as there's much back and forth going on this, please discuss the replacement of the term "estimate" with "official estimate" and for that term to be used wherever the 3,057 or 2,975 numbers are used. In some cases the term "official estimate as of August 28th, 2018" can be used where appropriate. If you disagree please state your reasoning why. If you disagree please propose an alternate version if you can. Ergzay ( talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Fatalities should be differentiated (at least in the infobox) since there is some controversy over the indirect vs direct deaths due to the hurricane itself. For example the Hurricane Florence page says that there were 28 direct and 17 indirect fatalities. If the data for Florence is presented in that way, Maria should also show different causes of indirect vs direct deaths. I added a reliable source to show that the G.W. study death toll includes INDIRECT casualties of the sort researchers counted but users continue to remove the data. Right now I cannot re-add the proper data since it has been protected until October 2. Can someone who has higher editing privileges please re-insert the correct data? Yodabyte ( talk) 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
It is mentioned in the TIME article, but only very subtly. Note the last sentence of the following passage:
"Hurricane Katrina, which struck New Orleans in 2005, was directly responsible for about 1,200 deaths, according to the National Hurricane Center. That does not include indirect deaths of the sort the George Washington researchers counted in Puerto Rico."
So it would seem that the GWU study did separate direct and indirect fatalities, but did not include those figures in the report. Undescribed ( talk) 22:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I changed Maria's deadliest hurricane since (year) to deadliest since Mitch in '98, since the death tolls that are currently up are 20 above Jeanne in '04. YellowSkarmory ( talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Being" in the lead part is unnecessary 158.182.228.147 ( talk) 01:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the lead, change to "and is also the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Hurricane Jeanne in 2004"
219.76.15.16 (
talk)
03:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Want to add more words to the US Virgin Islands 172.84.252.24 ( talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I want to add more text to US virgin islands page Starboy387373383 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Please Starboy387373383 ( talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but I will like to add more text to the page Starboy387373383 ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Lead section, changed tenth-most-intense to tenth most intense 116.48.204.57 ( talk) 16:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
As a heads up, I boldly trimmed the lead section. The goal was a manageable length for an overview of Hurricane Maria. I don't think I removed any info per se, but just made things more general. Feel free to edit (it's not perfect), but consider if something is vital to add to the lead section.
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
@ GoldGamer32: @ Super Cyclonic Storm Corona:
Either way, make sure the caption matches.
Cheers, Fredlesaltique ( talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
3,057 death toll hurricane maria Date: September 16, 2017 – October 2, 2017 2601:81:8581:8C0:15B8:7BF7:2909:81C8 ( talk) 09:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Why do we mention the monetary cost of the storm's damage in the lead, but not the number of lives lost? Seems like the wrong priority. Is there any objection to changing this? Nutiketaiel ( talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on the US Virgin Islands, we have "peer" when we mean to have "power." Summer Ficarrotta ( talk) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Javiquinones.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Jesseniaortiz3157.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I've noticed that this page had some missing information to it's thing. 103.101.107.167 ( talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add following sentence to the bottom of 'Impact on Dominica' section. Post-hurricane relief aid that was brought to Dominica from regional partners and aiding countries additionally brought several non-native species that became established and which local stakeholders are still trying to remove in 2022. [1] VandenBurgMP ( talk) 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The offical death toll in Puerto Rico was 64, the higher number cited in the article was calculated as excess deaths by a George Washington University study. I am not aware that "excess deaths" have been used to describe other disasters. At least both figures should be cited along with a description of the reason for the difference. Thank you. 47.134.211.161 ( talk) 12:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
As a subsection to "Criticism of US response", add the following text:
The lack of federal support raised questions from the media regarding the U.S. Government's dispensability in aiding its outlying territories in proportional levels to the contiguous state governments. A 2019 paper published by Willison, et al. titled Quantifying Inequities in US Federal Response to Hurricane Disaster in Texas and Florida Compared with Puerto Rico concluded that the federal response did "not align with storm severity or prevention and recovery needs and may substantially affect deaths and recovery rates." This discrepancy in aid coincided with President Trump's outward criticism of the "absurd" amount of funding being allocated to the island prompted a journalistic response that aimed at exposing the inequalities and inefficiencies of the federal response.
Further analysis concluded that media response from the U.S. mainland generally occurred along party alignment and general opinion of President Trump. For example, Fox News Network, regarded as a conservative-leaning major news network, reported on Puerto Rico far less than CNN and MSNBC, which were more vocal in their criticism of the Trump administration's response to the Hurricane. Moreover, national media coverage of Puerto Rico after Maria was significantly less than coverage of Harvey and Irma's aftermath in Texas and Florida, prompting questions of the US media's indispensability to report on Puerto Rico. An uptick in reporting on the island's situation coincided with the Trump administration's lack of response in federal relief aid, thus directing the overarching narrative. As a result, a quarter of national headlines discussing the situation in Puerto Rico in the two-week post-landfall period included "Trump". Most key reporting on Puerto Rico's relief from the mainland US, however, was conducted by individual reporters and smaller independent media companies who frequently challenged the local and federal government's policy, contributing to the development of public discontent with the governmental response. A 2017 report from the MIT Media Lab concluded that "the language used to discuss Maria was far more political with several mentions of “Congress,” “Senate,” “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “debt” or “tax.” Coverage of Harvey’s floods near Houston, on the other hand, focused more heavily on the storm’s toll on people, with high usage of terms like “victim” and “family.” In contrast to the national non-reaction to the unfolding humanitarian crisis, local, Spanish-speaking outlets, like Telemundo and Univision, immediately mobilized several reporting teams to cover the crisis, primarily focusing their content on relief and aid opportunities as opposed to fueling political banter. The disparity between national news and local media's coverage was seen by many as a representation of the national media's inherent biases and coverage along the lines of cultural affinity. A 2017 Washington Post article compared the experience of predominantly-black residents in Flint, Michigan after the water crisis they experienced to the reality of Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria, aiming to tie the lack of national attention to the racial biases inherent in the American media's psyche.
The lack of media and governmental response to the island's needs prompted questions about Puerto Rico's political status. A New York Times poll conducted in the months preceding the Hurricane showed half of Americans did not know Puerto Ricans were American citizens. The debate centered around the Jones Act, which prompted the local government to petition the United States government to temporarily lift it during the Hurricane's direct relief aftermath, further engendered feelings of discontent for Puerto Rico's de facto colonial status. Local media portrayals frequently regarded the United States as a modern imperial superpower, which retained its colonial possessions and subjected them to unequal standards of political consideration in comparison to their counterparts on the mainland. Documentaries like Aftershocks of Disaster: Puerto Rico Before and After the Storm (Haymarket Books, 2019), released Aug 2020, highlighted the grassroots movement to foster self-sustainability in the absence of an adequate governmental response. The documentary touched on the displacement of Puerto Ricans to the US mainland in the aftermath of the hurricane, as well as the resiliency and community efforts of Puerto Ricans who remained on the island. With respect to the response from the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland, the arts became a vehicle for the amplification of public discontent with the island's political status.
Felipealborsharvard (
talk)
22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I would like to add information regarding Military and Foreign Military response to the Hurricane, specifically in regards to Puerto Rico. To include examples of Aid rendered, Supply's delivered, Vessels and Heavy equipment (types/Names), as well as dates and manpower Figures to back them. There is what I consider to be interesting information regarding type and number of Missions undertaken and by which Specific units. I would like to use the example of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster relief page which has a subsection on Military and Foreign Military response to the event. In this case it would be folded into the aftermath tab subsection Puerto Rico Aftermath on the main Hurricane Maria Page; titled Military and International Response. Thank you for your time!
Below links to some of the sources I plan to use: - https://www.usace.army.mil/About/History/Historical-Vignettes/Relief-and-Recovery/154-Hurricane-Maria/ - https://centropr-archive.hunter.cuny.edu/centrovoices/current-affairs/military-mission-puerto-rico-after-hurricane-was-better-critics-say#:~:text=The%20military%20brought%20manpower%20to,affairs%20teams%20and%20tower%20climbers. - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2967.html - https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0917_hurricane-maria/ - https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/1335933/over-11000-dod-personnel-aid-puerto-rico-hurricane-relief-efforts/ FNPilot ( talk) 07:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a 1 image and add more information
Template:
{{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of the 2017}}
112.209.26.43 (
talk)
02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Diff:
− | {{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of 2017}} | + | {{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of the 2017}} |
add a the in the Diff 112.209.26.43 ( talk) 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
add a new infobox
{{Infobox weather event
| name = Hurricane Maria
| image = Hurricane Maria 2017-09-19 1742Z (gallery).jpg
| caption = Hurricane Maria near peak intensity to the southeast of [[Puerto Rico]] on September 19
| formed = September 16, 2017
| dissipated = October 2, 2017
| extratropical = September 30
| basin = Atl
}}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
| winds = 150
| pressure = 908
}}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
| year = 2017
| fatalities = 3,059 total
| damage = 9160600000
| damage-suffix = [[List of costliest tropical cyclones|Fourth-costliest]] [[tropical cyclone]] on record; costliest in [[Dominica]]n and [[History of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rican]] history
| areas = {{flatlist|
* [[Bahamas]]
* [[South Florida]], [[Central Florida]] and the [[Florida Panhandle]]
* [[Cuba]]
* [[Louisiana]] (especially [[Greater New Orleans]])
* [[Mississippi]]
* [[Alabama]]
* most of the [[Eastern United States]]
* [[Eastern Canada]]
}}
| ibtracs =
| refs =
}}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
| season = [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season]]
| related = <div class="center">{{Hurricane Maria related}}</div>
}}
122.2.114.203 (
talk)
03:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fix a 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season 122.2.114.203 ( talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
− | + | |ibtracs = 2017260N12310
| refs = |
Add a ibtracs id 2017260N12310 in the Infobox