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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The "political impact" section completely violates WP:NPOV. It's written like an editorial, and MUST be rewritten in a more neutral way, instead have implying not-so-subtle political accusatons. ypnypn ( talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The first three sections should be removed with the voter turnout remaining as that was a result of the storm. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What's going on? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I must not be parsing this right, but "Sandy was the 6th hurricane to hit the New England area in the history of the USA, after a 74 year hiatus following the 1938 New England Hurricane." is in sharp disagreement with the List of New England hurricanes. For instance, the list of NE hurricanes says: "The 20th century saw eight hurricanes making landfall in New England; out of these the more notable include the New England Hurricane of 1938 (also called the Long Island Express) whichmade landfall as a major hurricane; Hurricane Carol did the same sixteen years later. The last hurricane to make landfall in new England was Hurricane Bob in 1991 as a moderate category 2 hurricane with the highest sustained winds of 100 MPH." What are we trying to say? JMOprof ( talk) 01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I think I am seeing some vandalism on this article and it needs to be fixed, but I can't due to full protect. On Reference #14, the footnote title reads "Tropica I LIKE HUGE CCAWQKl Depression Eighteen Discussion Number 1". It should say simply "Tropical Depression Eigtheen Discussion Number 1". Thanks! -- 12george1 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I can see lively discussion here. I encourage folks to voice an opinion on sections above, to use rationales in edit summaries and not revert. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
With all respect intended, this is from 2011 and about FEMA. When I put something in there about last year, an editor took it out and said, it was last year...even though I thought it had weight to be put in the article like the poster did. I just think it's too political for an article that is supposed to be about a hurricane. Would think what it had would be great in the FEMA section under something like controversies. I just don't want a beautiful piece of work like the Sandy article to be bogged down with any kind of political stuff. That's why I didn't want global warning in it. I believe in climate change, but that's not the point. One can speculate all they want about IF warming caused anything at any time. That still won’t make it fact. Wikipedia is supposed to be unleaning and with tht entry, I believe it leans, even if romney said it. I deleted it twice and that all I will do. Please open a discussion on this. Respectfully Submitted. Kennvido ( talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Changes in campaigning happened. Obama touring New Jersey happened. Cancellation of the NY Marathon happened. Speculation and point-making on what the effects of Romney's desire to streamline and transfer responsibility to State and local authorities would have on FEMA's budget are just that, speculation and point-making. Speculation on what effects Sandy MAY have in a week is just that. The former can be included, the latter two, no. Basic WP editing standards. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This [1] replaces a direct quote ("Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur. But scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse") with an apparently pointless reversal ("Scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse. Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur"). Either way, at present its probably a copyvio. It would be better to quote directly from the article, if we want the text, and make it clear its a quote William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If possible could someone please make a section on what Hurricane Sandy did after giving the US and Canada a hit? I for one wish to know what happened after it happened. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on my analysis looking at OPC maps:
Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.37.108 ( talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy
Please try to keep your personal biases out of this stuff. If there's tons of discussion about the issue as relates to Sandy, make a section for it and put some stuff there with some links so people can make up their own minds. Cheers all. We can all get along and make the world a better place because people come here looking for information and find it and then they go away smarter and happy. If you want to make a page calling global warming a conspiracy theory, I'm all for it. Pär Larsson ( talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Remember when you read this, I have seen the raw studies on climate change, and I find climate change to be a valid explanation of what is happening. That being said, I have also read the linked article (including the ones at the top, all effectively carbon copies of each other). Those articles did not understand the difference between news articles and an encyclopaedia. It bears repeating: Wikipedia is not a news source. And I will add to that - news is not neutral. Incidentally, no matter who would have made the most edits and what the slant of the coverage, someone in the news media would have pointed out that the coverage was "biased". It so happened that Ken was first and dominant, and that he does not believe in global warming. Partly because of him, partly because many others agreed with neutrality, there was no global warming section until now. Does the coverage of a few reporters then demand that we at Wikipedia immediately follow the part of the news rush which is in the other direction? Do you somehow think *that* would make us neutral? - Tenebris 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.126 ( talk)
Just because Wikipedia was mentioned in a news article doesn't mean that there is (or even isn't) a problem with the lack of climate change in the article. It's just some article written by some guy who has his own biases and needs to find things to write about to pay his bills. You should use your own Wikipedia policies and best practises and precedent etc. to work out if climate change should be in the article. Otherwise you're essentially allowing one person (the guy who wrote the popsci article) that isn't even here and doesn't intimately know your policies and doesn't have a breadth of experience writing Wikipedia articles to tell you what you should put in your article. Why should his single view trump your guidelines, policies, opinions and experience? N-gauge ( talk) 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I found out about this article by one of the recent news stories. I have no personal stake in this and no strong opinion on climate change, but it is so much a part of the national dialogue over climate change that it is ridiculous not to include a balanced discussion of the subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
So, we have a small section on the relation to GW, and its even got a NPOV tag on it (for unclear reasons), and yet we still have people deleting it for apparently spurious reasons. Someone thought it was related to "Mckibben" for unclear reasons; and someone else makes bizarre allegations of "just off wiki attacks and canvassing". Neither of those are reasons for removal. The section itself is all well sourced, and it doesn't say "ZOMG its all GW". What is supposed to be wrong with it? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is getting silly. It got removed again (thankfully back again) on the grounds of " http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy". As a reason for removal, thats about the worst I've ever seen William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
True neutrality would require recognizing that *every* media agency -- not just Fox, not just CNN, not just Sun, not just the NYT -- has an agenda. This is why I propose that we stay away from media opinion altogether on this one for the time being. Please, everyone, recognize that pro or con, anything we can possibly write into a GW section here *will* be taken as a political statement just now, even if it should not be. (Be honest with yourself. If you have a driving need to put anything about GW into this article RIGHT NOW, you have a political agenda in so doing -- and ideally WP should be agenda-free.) Let's keep this article out of the election campaigns. If people still don't like it after next week, let that be a separate argument, as science-based as you like it -- and be clear about the ability to prove direct causality. - Tenebris 22:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.181 ( talk)
Wikipedia looks silly by deemphasizing global warming in this article. It needs to be included. If Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
[4] [5] This is pretty cool and maybe should be mentioned in the marathon section. After the marathon was cancelled, runners decided to start delivering relief supplies on foot. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a good addition to me. Sources are okay. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I may be missing it, but I can't see any current discussion here that justifies the {{ POV-section}} tag on the Meteorological history section. Can someone summarise the current problem here, or shall we remove the tag? -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. There are no serious arguments for retaining it, and indeed no-one has presented any. If you want the tag back, please provide some justification. "This article should not mention GW" is not a justification William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have redirected this extraneous content to a separate article. The current one is too big and this ephemeral material needs to be fought over separately without disrupting the main article. μηδείς ( talk) 04:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed the United States section to say "killed over a hundred" instead of "hundreds" - a more exactnumber would be good - with cite.
I removed...
"Free gasoline was also provided by the U.S. federal government. People could get up to 10 gallons of free gas."
As I believe that is wrong, at least without qualification.
Rich
Farmbrough,
06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I put back in with NPR ref in the NY sub article Rich. If you don't think the report from NPR is valid, please delete again. Kennvido ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section entitled "Great Lakes Region", please change "the morning of the October 30" to "the morning of October 30" (minor grammatical correction). In the first instance of (West Virginia's) "Governor Tomblin", please use the full name: "Governor Earl Ray Tomblin" to be consistent with the other initial mentions of individuals' names. Misterfirley ( talk) 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit creates an WP:EGG. There are political effects that go beyond the 2012 election; for example Waxmans requested Global warming hearing after the 2012 election. This edit has restricted the scope of the sentence to the point that it is not accurate. I wrote the original text and am sure it could be better phrased. But this attempt is not the answer.... I would try again but I have lost track of my 3RR status. Anybody have a better way to say it that does not create the problems created in the above diff? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting. Might be usable per WP:NEWSBLOG, or there might be more stuff about it (I haven't looked, just came across that). 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The Earth Observatory has several good images for Hurricane Sandy : Natural Hazards which could be added. Smallman12q ( talk)
The article opens with the line:
The article "The only difference between a hurricane, a cyclone, and a typhoon is the location where the storm occurs" found at website http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/cyclone.html. The article indicates:
I'm assume the noaa knows what they are talking about. Given that the opening line should be changed to:
- rfengler, (talk), November 3, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.181.206 ( talk) 12:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hurricane Sandy, the eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km). Hurricane Sandy devastating portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October 2012.
devastated, not devastating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.130.15 ( talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed:
because its either wrong, or misleading. What the IPCC actually said was:
which isn't the same thing. See-also their Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme. What they are trying to say is that they have low confidence in being able to attribute the change. Not that they have low confidence that humans are affecting them. Its not a positive low confidence, but a negative one William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
See "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in the first line of the article: "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Please change to "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Note that "be" should be "by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tihm ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2012
For new editors... although the following poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors opinions. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so this article has gone back and forth between containing statements on climate change / global warming and not, and the discussion is spread out all over the talk page. So I've come up with 4 proposals (similar to what I did with the use of "Frankenstorm" in the article). Since none of the sources that have been used so far (and none that I've seen) directly talk about anthropomorphic global warming / climate change, these proposals only refer to general climate change, as it would violate
WP:OR for us as editors to take an article that talks about climate change and imply that it means anthropomorphic climate change. Apparently a couple sources from an early climate change revision that I hadn't seen did discuss specifically human-caused global warming. While we can use those articles, it would probably be best to avoid specifically stating that human-caused climate change influenced Sandy and just leave it at climate change. Whether climate change is human-caused or naturally-caused is probaly a debate that should stay on the climate change article. So here are 4 proposals that I feel should encompass any possible solution:
Again, I feel that these 4 options encompass all possible viewpoints. So, let's see what the consensus is. Inks.LWC ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This political nonsense has got to stop. When a notable peer-reviewd article is published linking the hurricane to global warming it should be added. But just because a blog in a reliable source makes a non-scientific claim we do not need to give it any weight, just as we do not need to give any weight to the Imams whose claims this is their god's punishment of the United States just because those claims are reported in reliable sources. μηδείς ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's Kennvido, I go for Proposal D first and A second. Kennvido ( talk) 02:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a fine process but that opening post contains a surprisingly large error. Fully 3 out of 4 reliable sources I used in the first global warming text (fully cited) posted to this article specifically refer to human-caused global warming and for all I know so do some of the RSs posted by others. Here is a review of mine:
1 From Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change (a peer-reviewed article in the professional science literature)
How big is the human influence on climate? Is it big enough that a question such as “Is this event due to global warming?” even makes sense? Here these questions are addressed along with improved ways to frame the questions that inevitably arise when new climate extremes occur, and there have been many over the past 2 years. (underline added)
The climate has changed; global warming is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and human activities have undoubtedly changed the composition of the atmosphere and produced warming. Moreover there is no other plausible explanation for the warming. [ ] Scientists are frequently asked about an event “Is it caused by climate change?” The answer is that no events are “caused by climate change” or global warming, but all events have a contribution. Moreover, a small shift in the mean can still lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. In reality the wrong question is being asked: the question is poorly posed and has no satisfactory answer. The answer is that all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be. (underline added; bold italics in original)
2. From Slow-moving hurricanes such as Sandy on the rise
'Sandy is expected to linger for days, thanks to blocking patterns that make weather systems move slowly. Climate change will create more such situations in future', says Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.... Emanuel says it's pretty clear that Atlantic hurricanes are on the rise, though, driven in part by warming oceans, made warmer through greenhouse gas emissions (underline added)
3. From the caption to the educational video Steroids, baseball, and climate change: What do home runs and weather extremes have in common?
AtmosNews takes a lighthearted look at an unexpected analogy, explaining why some people call carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gases) the steroids of the climate system. (underline added)
This rather astonishing mis-characterization of the sources that have been posted aside this is a fine process. Perhaps RSs offered by others also explicitly refer to human-causes too. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal E
I don't really think that works. What does a politician know about climatology? Additionally, one of the main reasons this whole topic has become such an issue is that we want to avoid the political element as much as possible.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Give me a second to finish fixing it! There are so many edits here that I had to do this in pieces to get it through. - Tenebris 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This proposal strikes a different compromise which neither ignores mention nor forces an opinion. It acknowledges every important mention of Sandy + climate change which is said by a major person who is directly involved or by a highly informed group of people. The media storm on the subject can be ackonwledged with a simple sentence saying that there is a media storm on the subject and giving a few references. Other Wikipedia articles on the subject can be hyperlinked in the quote, but should not be discussed on this page.
As to "what does a politician know about climatology?" -- one might point out that a politician knows as much as a reporter, and several know as much as the average science writer. (Most science articles are not written by scientists.) However, what a head of government says makes a difference for present and future public policy, including disaster planning, and thus is noteworthy. - Tenebris 15:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. Proposal E is now in its final form. Thank you for your patience. - Tenebris 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. This is overtly political. So Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming... but other hurricanes weren't? If there were any connection to global warming, it should be discussed in the various global warming articles. At least fight these stupid political battle on the usual pages, spreading your thoughts to other articles doesn't magically give your argument more merit. -- NINTENDUDE 64 17:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think that not including Global Warming is overtly political. To do so would be to ignore the very large number of people making a connection. I think that it is certainly notable enough to necessitate inclusion, so the only problem I see remaining is that people do not like it. Falconus p t c 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal A - Climate change is a scientific issue, not a political one, and politically or religiously motivated scepticism should not be given undue weight. Some people would probably like the page Elephant to leave out information on the evolution of elephants. They would insist that the science is not settled on evolution, that discussing it on pages about individual animals gives undue weight to unproven claims, and that information about the alleged evolution of elephants can be included at Evolution. Wikipedia policy doesn't give their views equal validity, though. - Cal Engime ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The proposals miss the most important point: it's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other? The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else. 76.218.9.50 ( talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
→ Actually, I wanted to first make a couple of comments on the meteorology. Some of these should be vetted, as I'm using these based on secondary sources. There are three items that I'd heard about Sandy that I'd like to see clarified. The first is that I'd heard a Rossby wave in the polar jet stream 'swallowed' Sandy. I don't know if that is correct, but if so, it definitely belongs in the meteorology section. The second is the role of warm North Atlantic sea temperatures in the intensification of the storm. It is true that the N. Atlantic sea temperatures are warmer than usual, but I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this was a significant factor. Third, it was said that a cold front to the west merged or was going to merge with Sandy creating stronger conditions. I don't see a mention of these in the meteorology section. I would like to see some discussion since these were at least mentioned in the news reports. Whether they're correct or have some causal link to the storm, I don't know, but it would be helpful to see a resolution. For anyone trying to sift through all the newspaper reports, it would be helpful to have a retrospective on these points that is authoritative.
On the climate change issue - it strikes me that a separate section on GW would be warranted, but that might be divided into two parts. The first part has some evaluation of possible factors associated with GW that *might* have led to the intensity of the storm. In particular was the Rossby wave (if true) one causal factor? Was the warm N. Atlantic temperature? I'd heard both sides of this argued. In fact, the most reliable source I'd heard argued that the warm N. Atlantic temperatures weren't sufficient to cause the increase in intensity. Either way, I'd like to see some statement about it. Even if there is no resolution, it would be helpful to have references. The second part could be devoted to news coverage and political statements about possible linkage. The point, to me, is that Sandy has been linked by some to GW, and if there are limits to our ability to pin down causation, that's important to sort out. signed NSHSDad ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSDad ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal F: You all fail. Read some of the other fantastic hurricane articles that are so frequently earning Featured Article status here on Wikipedia, and then leave this article to that dedicated group that wrote those articles. Global warming or not, it has no place in the Meteorological History section. --- More specifically, I go with Proposal C or D.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.173.242 ( talk) 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal D - Given the recent nature of the phenomenon there is obviously no causal and direct evidence to say that this is a specific case of man made global warming of the political variety. And given its highly political nature, and its general irrelevancy to the discussion of the storm, it seems the only reason to include a section on climate change would be to support a position of that science. Given that it seems unnecessary for the purpose of the article, it seems pretty reasonable to simply leave it out. We shouldn't be drawing the speculative conclusions -- let the MSM do that. MHP Huck ( talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal D - GW does not belong in an article about Sandy. Sandy belongs in an article about (evidence/arguments for) GW. The political campaign to insert GW into this article reminds me of the medieval placement of God and Jesus in every text to ensure that due deference was paid to the ideology of the time. With that thought in mind, we could find authoritative religious sources from the Middle East and the 700 Club who have said that the Jews and the gays caused the hurricane. Should we add a section about Jew/Gay responsibility for the hurricane? It would be no less absurd. I second everything that davidwr said earlier. Dturover ( talk) 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section for the time being to request edits not related to the content being disputed above until the protection is lifted. TornadoLGS ( talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Request to append to the paragraphs on climate change:
Following the storm, Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid |title=It's Global Warming, Stupid |last=Barrett |first=Paul M. |date=November 1, 2012 |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] }}</ref>
People mentioned this source above, but strangely it doesn't seem to be cited. Rather than pretend Businessweek is a particular authority to settle the matter, I think it makes more sense to point out their level of coverage. Steven Walling • talk 00:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the least meaningful phrase in the English language from this sentence in the summary, and replace it with the proper preposition: "It is having various political effects in the United States especially in terms of [sic the general election scheduled for November 6, 2012." Should read, " ... especially on the general election ... ". Autodidact1 ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Typo in section "Reactions to Obama administration disaster response" The end of the sentence preceding reference 268 should read: "criticized the administration for responding too quickly to the storm" instead of "criticized the administration for responding to quickly to the storm" (note the words in bold) Rishi.bedi ( talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Rishi.bedi ( talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Itemized_deduction#casualty Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in section "Effect on campaigning"
The final sentence of the section, preceding references 256 and 266 should read:
"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane."
instead of
"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane. ."
(note the double punctuation in bold at the end of the sentence) Jscottcc ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat)
10:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)The "Political Impact" section has several issues which I think should be addressed.
So there you have it. Are any of these doable, admins? RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please edit the first sentence. It makes absolutely no grammatical sense: "Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone of that devastated portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October." 'Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone OF THAT devastated portions of...' Really? That's all the proofreading it gets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.180.73 ( talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit requests November 4:
The following section contains speculative hypothesis which do not agree with the scientific consensus of experts in the field of hurricane study. It should be made clear that this opinion is not based on an actual analysis of physical data as is implied here but rather it is based on the predictions of climate change models developed by individuals with no expertise in hurricanes as proposed by the following:
According to their analysis (replace "analysis" with: "models"), global warming is expected (replace "expected" with: "predicted") to continue to increase ocean surface temperatures and the frequency of blocking patterns in the future.[34][35]
The following sentences are media coverage and of no scientific value in this debate and as such should not be in the section "Meteorological history". They should either be deleted or moved to the section "Political Impact" or a new section on media coverage:
Mark Fischetti of Scientific American proposed (replace "proposed" with: "speculates that") a more explicit link, arguing that the melting of Arctic ice caused a negative North Atlantic Oscillation, which fueled the expansion of Sandy by pushing the jet stream south.[36]
Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."[37]
This inclusion of media speculation in this section by activist authors who lack any science credentials is troubling to say the least. There should be no debate needed about the inappropriate inclusion of these sentences in this section of the article.
It is clear to me that Wikipedia has still not cleaned up its act and that people of a like mind with William Connolley are still vandalizing articles here to promote their belief system. This is making Wikipedia a source of disinformation instead of the valuable resource that it could be. This is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.111.158 ( talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence in the article is a fragment: "The eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season". Also, the first paragraph compares Sandy to Katrina twice -- seems a bit redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.227 ( talk) 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is getting press attention for a period in which there was a lack of information on climate change within it. It appears to me to be noteworthy that arguably the most widely read single article on the internet on Sandy had no climate change info. However user:NewsAndEventsGuy appears to disagree. What do we think about mentioning this meta-issue? Is it of no relevance whatsoever that a possible contributory cause of Sandy is whitewashed out of Sandy coverage?
Specifically, I think the article should have a sentence referenced to the PopSci article along the lines of "Wikipedia's coverage of climate change within its Hurricane Sandy article itself became a subject of media coverage."
I note the PopSci piece has been picked up by some other media, e.g. [15]
NewsAndEventsGuy thinks such a mention is 'hounding' and 'offpoint'. I don't think it is hounding, and I do think it is the whole point: out GW para begins "Global warming's influence on the storm is the subject of ongoing media discussion." So too is whether or not wikipedia, through the actions of a particular wikipedian, has in effect censored discussion of GW. It is certainly "related to meteorology or global warming" in that we're living in a time in which, arguably, the political is obscuring the scientific, just as we see in this article the political decision to denude the article of clime change information. Thoughts?-- Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Far too "inside baseball" to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Full moon brings high tide and it happened at the same time the hurricane hit the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.20.10 ( talk) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It was constantly on the news. There has to be some mention of it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Intro section should give an overview of the whole article. It is currently missing any mention of the global warming connections, since these are a significant part of the article. Can someone put a concise mention in the Lead? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether the revised/updated AGW section survives or not the effect (not the cause) of the blocking pattern over Greenland really belongs in the meteorological section prior to the GW section. Anybody wanna work on that? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A second storm is heading to the Northeast: [16]. Should this mentioned in the article? Maybe in a new aftermath section? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This seems reliable. But is it notable? Undue? Other? This article had a lot of traffic (and still likely does). This disruption deserves a mention, I think. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
(od) It was also in Grist.org 2 Nov 2012: Meet the man who’s kept climate change off the Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page ... found on Climate change denial. 99.109.127.40 ( talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the global warming crap, it has no place on the page. None of it even has anything to do with Sandy, it's just a bunch of media quotes asking general questions about climate change and global warming.
99.136.196.166 ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Begoon
talk
16:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing was determined except that useless quotes from media outlets asking questions passes for citation of facts by reputable sources. This type of thing is exactly why most people think this site is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.196.166 ( talk) 07:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Despite assorted hypothesize about possible factors contributing to Global Climate change, nobody has successfully proven that CO2 plays a major role. Any links and or references to IPCC, NASA or other organizations well known for lauding these hypothesize as theories, should be counter balanced with references to organizations with a different view point, like the NIPCC.
To preserve the integrity of WIKI, any mention of "Global Warming" at all, should contain disclaimers that its causes are currently matters of debate and specifically that Man Made AGW has never been proved.
Personally, in my opinion, the Idea that miniscule increases in a naturally occurring, sub 400 ( [1]) ppm gas (CO2) has some larger impact on temperatures doesn't add up - especially when other gases with close IR absorption rates exist in much higher quantities (like O2 at 21%); while, increased solar activity (and the accompanying increases in UV output) contributing more energy to the earth (most of which translates into heat at some point - for example: at the Ozone layer (UV), the Ionosphere (CME), throughout the atmosphere or after contact with objects on the ground) makes a whole lot more sense.
Ed34222 ( talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Ed34222 2012-11-07 Ed34222 ( talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think the current version accurately reports what Dr. Trenberth said about the NAO. Our text reads Dr. Trenberth, however, argued that the negative NAO was just part of the oscillation's natural phases However the cited source says he only said this has to be the null hypothesis and he opined that the studies have not (yet) shown cause and effect. Isn't that a more of a "so far we are speculating" type of opinion than the "it definitely did not happen that way" sort of thing we currently say he said? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if the above article stands alone-- it seems to make a note of it on this page. Can other editors offer an opinion on the matter? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I would definitely support including info about Occupy Sandy in the "Relief efforts" section. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that CNN is reporting that 110 have died in the United States. However, UPI and other news outlets are saying 113 died. Unfortunately, the death toll is likely to rise, however is there a way to confirm the exact number now? -- Luke (Talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
PageInformer: The death toll is bound to rise after floods and disease caused by rats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageInformer ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The first part of the article mentions 52 deaths in Jamaica and 11 in Cuba, but the final death toll doesn't include those? Why don't they "count"? 41.10.165.213 ( talk) 06:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a post-tropical storm before landfall. [17] [18] Shouldn't this be reflected in the article name? If not, this should be mentioned in the article, possibly in a "Cleanup" section.-- Auric ( talk) 03:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other?" The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm IN HISTORY has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else. 76.218.9.50 ( talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
We have about 200 years of solid data with quite a few east coast hurricanes. Sandy isn't anything special. -- Matthurricane ( talk) 09:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence says "largest Atlantic hurricane on record" - but rest of lead and the Meterological section do not make it clear what that means, unless it's in jargon deep down there somewhere that the casual reader might not catch it. I get the impression from what I've read it means in actual size and width, but it's not as strong as, say, the 1938 New England hurricane which was category 3 or more. So maybe that could be clarified in both sections so in the future people hearing about a "smaller" hurricane (that's category 2 or 3) coming and reading this article think they can relax. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this belong in the pol section rather than the met one? He's a great guy, and so on, but his views on the linkage to GW aren't a scientist / climatologist / meteorologists views; he's a pol William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I still think inquiring minds still want to know: Is Sandy a woman's name or a man's? As this perfectly acceptable reliable source says, she's a lady (or a storm with a woman's name, anyway). Thoughts, after weeks of consideration? InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone missed the original proposal, please save me from repeating myself. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose footnote or any mention of the name meaning male/female With all the articles that need work we are going on about this? Let the reader choose and go through their minds here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Numerous meteorological RSs talk about the extraordinary energy and size of Sandy despite it being "only" a category 1 (or words to that effect)..... Lots of EMS people were tearing out there hair trying to convince folks to take it seriously even though it was "only" a category 1..... In this diff Prototime ( talk · contribs) says we should not repeat the adjective used by these RSs (even though it is part of their main point) because Prototime feels we should not repeat RS language that is UNENCYCLOPEDIC. This a non-argument, much less a reason for trumping RS content, for reasons found in WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. What do others think? BTW... Prototime also defended the deletion saying that the data speaks for itself. Star Treks Dr McCoy would disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I know Sandy was becoming extratropical as it bore down on the coast but could it be mentioned that it was the first tropical cyclone to cross into NJ while still carrying hurricane force winds since 1903? I know that Irene was still a minimal hurricane in NJ but technically it wasn't. Maybe in Post analasis they'll say it was still tropical in NJ. 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where to post this. It is not a big deal, but one of the pictures you have in the Hurricane Sandy article of several damaged beachfront houses is posted as being Long Beach Island, but it is actually Mantoloking. One of the houses in the picture is my house, which is why I'm sending the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.216.149 ( talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As a Canadian I am surprised Canada is included in this article. This storm had very little impact in Canada compared to any number of other annual storms we have in this country, especially in the winter. I don't know why space is being wasted on Canada in various places here. I can point to any random blizzard during the winter in Central Canada or Quebec and likely find higher numbers of people without power or lives lost or any other diaster metric, and none of these have Wikipedia articles. Just because Sandy was big news doesn't mean we have to stick every country it touched into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.88.123 ( talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
$100 million in insured damage (total damage likely higher) is hardly an insignificant impact. CrazyC83 ( talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
NWS Morehead City/Newport appeared to primarily use this article to write their report. While the data has since been updated (death toll increased to 253 from 191), the track and wording mostly comes off an old version. CrazyC83 ( talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that they used us as the source. CrazyC83 ( talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased. Like it or not, Global Warming/Climate Change is a *theory,* not an established fact; and yet the article is presenting it as if it were established. Even more importantly, there are no alternative perspectives or theories presented. There's no room for debate on that, it clearly, definitely meets the definition of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 ( talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Andrew M. Cuomo declared that Hurricane Sandy had been “more impactful” than Hurricane Katrina. [2]
“affected many, many more people and places than Katrina,”
This would be ae an encyclopedic addition with the suggested quotation from the Governor of New York.
216.250.156.66 ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Should we create a section based on the various names that Hurricane Sandy acquired (either from the media or the NHC etc.) as it moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.80.209 ( talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (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 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The "political impact" section completely violates WP:NPOV. It's written like an editorial, and MUST be rewritten in a more neutral way, instead have implying not-so-subtle political accusatons. ypnypn ( talk) 23:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The first three sections should be removed with the voter turnout remaining as that was a result of the storm. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
What's going on? HiLo48 ( talk) 01:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I must not be parsing this right, but "Sandy was the 6th hurricane to hit the New England area in the history of the USA, after a 74 year hiatus following the 1938 New England Hurricane." is in sharp disagreement with the List of New England hurricanes. For instance, the list of NE hurricanes says: "The 20th century saw eight hurricanes making landfall in New England; out of these the more notable include the New England Hurricane of 1938 (also called the Long Island Express) whichmade landfall as a major hurricane; Hurricane Carol did the same sixteen years later. The last hurricane to make landfall in new England was Hurricane Bob in 1991 as a moderate category 2 hurricane with the highest sustained winds of 100 MPH." What are we trying to say? JMOprof ( talk) 01:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I think I am seeing some vandalism on this article and it needs to be fixed, but I can't due to full protect. On Reference #14, the footnote title reads "Tropica I LIKE HUGE CCAWQKl Depression Eighteen Discussion Number 1". It should say simply "Tropical Depression Eigtheen Discussion Number 1". Thanks! -- 12george1 ( talk) 02:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I can see lively discussion here. I encourage folks to voice an opinion on sections above, to use rationales in edit summaries and not revert. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 03:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
With all respect intended, this is from 2011 and about FEMA. When I put something in there about last year, an editor took it out and said, it was last year...even though I thought it had weight to be put in the article like the poster did. I just think it's too political for an article that is supposed to be about a hurricane. Would think what it had would be great in the FEMA section under something like controversies. I just don't want a beautiful piece of work like the Sandy article to be bogged down with any kind of political stuff. That's why I didn't want global warning in it. I believe in climate change, but that's not the point. One can speculate all they want about IF warming caused anything at any time. That still won’t make it fact. Wikipedia is supposed to be unleaning and with tht entry, I believe it leans, even if romney said it. I deleted it twice and that all I will do. Please open a discussion on this. Respectfully Submitted. Kennvido ( talk) 10:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Changes in campaigning happened. Obama touring New Jersey happened. Cancellation of the NY Marathon happened. Speculation and point-making on what the effects of Romney's desire to streamline and transfer responsibility to State and local authorities would have on FEMA's budget are just that, speculation and point-making. Speculation on what effects Sandy MAY have in a week is just that. The former can be included, the latter two, no. Basic WP editing standards. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 12:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This [1] replaces a direct quote ("Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur. But scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse") with an apparently pointless reversal ("Scientists say warming oceans and greater atmospheric moisture are adding to the intensity of storms while rising sea levels are making coastal impacts worse. Experts say to use caution in singling out climate change as the culprit when major storms occur"). Either way, at present its probably a copyvio. It would be better to quote directly from the article, if we want the text, and make it clear its a quote William M. Connolley ( talk) 11:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
If possible could someone please make a section on what Hurricane Sandy did after giving the US and Canada a hit? I for one wish to know what happened after it happened. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 13:16, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Based on my analysis looking at OPC maps:
Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.152.37.108 ( talk) 00:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy
Please try to keep your personal biases out of this stuff. If there's tons of discussion about the issue as relates to Sandy, make a section for it and put some stuff there with some links so people can make up their own minds. Cheers all. We can all get along and make the world a better place because people come here looking for information and find it and then they go away smarter and happy. If you want to make a page calling global warming a conspiracy theory, I'm all for it. Pär Larsson ( talk) 16:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Remember when you read this, I have seen the raw studies on climate change, and I find climate change to be a valid explanation of what is happening. That being said, I have also read the linked article (including the ones at the top, all effectively carbon copies of each other). Those articles did not understand the difference between news articles and an encyclopaedia. It bears repeating: Wikipedia is not a news source. And I will add to that - news is not neutral. Incidentally, no matter who would have made the most edits and what the slant of the coverage, someone in the news media would have pointed out that the coverage was "biased". It so happened that Ken was first and dominant, and that he does not believe in global warming. Partly because of him, partly because many others agreed with neutrality, there was no global warming section until now. Does the coverage of a few reporters then demand that we at Wikipedia immediately follow the part of the news rush which is in the other direction? Do you somehow think *that* would make us neutral? - Tenebris 18:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.157.126 ( talk)
Just because Wikipedia was mentioned in a news article doesn't mean that there is (or even isn't) a problem with the lack of climate change in the article. It's just some article written by some guy who has his own biases and needs to find things to write about to pay his bills. You should use your own Wikipedia policies and best practises and precedent etc. to work out if climate change should be in the article. Otherwise you're essentially allowing one person (the guy who wrote the popsci article) that isn't even here and doesn't intimately know your policies and doesn't have a breadth of experience writing Wikipedia articles to tell you what you should put in your article. Why should his single view trump your guidelines, policies, opinions and experience? N-gauge ( talk) 17:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I found out about this article by one of the recent news stories. I have no personal stake in this and no strong opinion on climate change, but it is so much a part of the national dialogue over climate change that it is ridiculous not to include a balanced discussion of the subject. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:09, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
So, we have a small section on the relation to GW, and its even got a NPOV tag on it (for unclear reasons), and yet we still have people deleting it for apparently spurious reasons. Someone thought it was related to "Mckibben" for unclear reasons; and someone else makes bizarre allegations of "just off wiki attacks and canvassing". Neither of those are reasons for removal. The section itself is all well sourced, and it doesn't say "ZOMG its all GW". What is supposed to be wrong with it? William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is getting silly. It got removed again (thankfully back again) on the grounds of " http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-11/wikipedia-sandy". As a reason for removal, thats about the worst I've ever seen William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
True neutrality would require recognizing that *every* media agency -- not just Fox, not just CNN, not just Sun, not just the NYT -- has an agenda. This is why I propose that we stay away from media opinion altogether on this one for the time being. Please, everyone, recognize that pro or con, anything we can possibly write into a GW section here *will* be taken as a political statement just now, even if it should not be. (Be honest with yourself. If you have a driving need to put anything about GW into this article RIGHT NOW, you have a political agenda in so doing -- and ideally WP should be agenda-free.) Let's keep this article out of the election campaigns. If people still don't like it after next week, let that be a separate argument, as science-based as you like it -- and be clear about the ability to prove direct causality. - Tenebris 22:59, 3 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.181 ( talk)
Wikipedia looks silly by deemphasizing global warming in this article. It needs to be included. If Wikipedia policy doesn't allow it then there is something fundamentally wrong with Wikipedia. Coretheapple ( talk) 20:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
[4] [5] This is pretty cool and maybe should be mentioned in the marathon section. After the marathon was cancelled, runners decided to start delivering relief supplies on foot. 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 20:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like a good addition to me. Sources are okay. Your friendly Wikipedia prefect :) - (I can haz Cheezburger?) 22:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I may be missing it, but I can't see any current discussion here that justifies the {{ POV-section}} tag on the Meteorological history section. Can someone summarise the current problem here, or shall we remove the tag? -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:55, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. There are no serious arguments for retaining it, and indeed no-one has presented any. If you want the tag back, please provide some justification. "This article should not mention GW" is not a justification William M. Connolley ( talk) 15:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I have redirected this extraneous content to a separate article. The current one is too big and this ephemeral material needs to be fought over separately without disrupting the main article. μηδείς ( talk) 04:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I changed the United States section to say "killed over a hundred" instead of "hundreds" - a more exactnumber would be good - with cite.
I removed...
"Free gasoline was also provided by the U.S. federal government. People could get up to 10 gallons of free gas."
As I believe that is wrong, at least without qualification.
Rich
Farmbrough,
06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC).
06:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
I put back in with NPR ref in the NY sub article Rich. If you don't think the report from NPR is valid, please delete again. Kennvido ( talk) 16:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section entitled "Great Lakes Region", please change "the morning of the October 30" to "the morning of October 30" (minor grammatical correction). In the first instance of (West Virginia's) "Governor Tomblin", please use the full name: "Governor Earl Ray Tomblin" to be consistent with the other initial mentions of individuals' names. Misterfirley ( talk) 13:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This edit creates an WP:EGG. There are political effects that go beyond the 2012 election; for example Waxmans requested Global warming hearing after the 2012 election. This edit has restricted the scope of the sentence to the point that it is not accurate. I wrote the original text and am sure it could be better phrased. But this attempt is not the answer.... I would try again but I have lost track of my 3RR status. Anybody have a better way to say it that does not create the problems created in the above diff? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 17:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting. Might be usable per WP:NEWSBLOG, or there might be more stuff about it (I haven't looked, just came across that). 67.119.3.105 ( talk) 20:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
The Earth Observatory has several good images for Hurricane Sandy : Natural Hazards which could be added. Smallman12q ( talk)
The article opens with the line:
The article "The only difference between a hurricane, a cyclone, and a typhoon is the location where the storm occurs" found at website http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/cyclone.html. The article indicates:
I'm assume the noaa knows what they are talking about. Given that the opening line should be changed to:
- rfengler, (talk), November 3, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.181.206 ( talk) 12:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Hurricane Sandy, the eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season, was the largest Atlantic hurricane on record, as measured by diameter, with winds spanning 1,100 miles (1,800 km). Hurricane Sandy devastating portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October 2012.
devastated, not devastating — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.130.15 ( talk) 11:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I removed:
because its either wrong, or misleading. What the IPCC actually said was:
which isn't the same thing. See-also their Assigning ‘low confidence’ in observed changes in a specific extreme on regional or global scales neither implies nor excludes the possibility of changes in this extreme. What they are trying to say is that they have low confidence in being able to attribute the change. Not that they have low confidence that humans are affecting them. Its not a positive low confidence, but a negative one William M. Connolley ( talk) 14:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
See "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia". -- Ssilvers ( talk) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in the first line of the article: "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Please change to "Hurricane Sandy, dubbed Superstorm Sandy be several media outlets". Note that "be" should be "by". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tihm ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 November 2012
For new editors... although the following poll sort of looks like a vote that is not what it is. Wikipedia treats polls such as these as a way of organizing discussion of the principles and the strength of the reasons underlying editors opinions. It is not a majority rule voting process. As it says in WP:Consensus "...consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority), polls should be regarded as structured discussions rather than voting. Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight." NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, so this article has gone back and forth between containing statements on climate change / global warming and not, and the discussion is spread out all over the talk page. So I've come up with 4 proposals (similar to what I did with the use of "Frankenstorm" in the article). Since none of the sources that have been used so far (and none that I've seen) directly talk about anthropomorphic global warming / climate change, these proposals only refer to general climate change, as it would violate
WP:OR for us as editors to take an article that talks about climate change and imply that it means anthropomorphic climate change. Apparently a couple sources from an early climate change revision that I hadn't seen did discuss specifically human-caused global warming. While we can use those articles, it would probably be best to avoid specifically stating that human-caused climate change influenced Sandy and just leave it at climate change. Whether climate change is human-caused or naturally-caused is probaly a debate that should stay on the climate change article. So here are 4 proposals that I feel should encompass any possible solution:
Again, I feel that these 4 options encompass all possible viewpoints. So, let's see what the consensus is. Inks.LWC ( talk) 00:03, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This political nonsense has got to stop. When a notable peer-reviewd article is published linking the hurricane to global warming it should be added. But just because a blog in a reliable source makes a non-scientific claim we do not need to give it any weight, just as we do not need to give any weight to the Imams whose claims this is their god's punishment of the United States just because those claims are reported in reliable sources. μηδείς ( talk) 00:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
It's Kennvido, I go for Proposal D first and A second. Kennvido ( talk) 02:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a fine process but that opening post contains a surprisingly large error. Fully 3 out of 4 reliable sources I used in the first global warming text (fully cited) posted to this article specifically refer to human-caused global warming and for all I know so do some of the RSs posted by others. Here is a review of mine:
1 From Framing the way to relate climate extremes to climate change (a peer-reviewed article in the professional science literature)
How big is the human influence on climate? Is it big enough that a question such as “Is this event due to global warming?” even makes sense? Here these questions are addressed along with improved ways to frame the questions that inevitably arise when new climate extremes occur, and there have been many over the past 2 years. (underline added)
The climate has changed; global warming is unequivocal (IPCC 2007) and human activities have undoubtedly changed the composition of the atmosphere and produced warming. Moreover there is no other plausible explanation for the warming. [ ] Scientists are frequently asked about an event “Is it caused by climate change?” The answer is that no events are “caused by climate change” or global warming, but all events have a contribution. Moreover, a small shift in the mean can still lead to very large percentage changes in extremes. In reality the wrong question is being asked: the question is poorly posed and has no satisfactory answer. The answer is that all weather events are affected by climate change because the environment in which they occur is warmer and moister than it used to be. (underline added; bold italics in original)
2. From Slow-moving hurricanes such as Sandy on the rise
'Sandy is expected to linger for days, thanks to blocking patterns that make weather systems move slowly. Climate change will create more such situations in future', says Kerry Emanuel at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.... Emanuel says it's pretty clear that Atlantic hurricanes are on the rise, though, driven in part by warming oceans, made warmer through greenhouse gas emissions (underline added)
3. From the caption to the educational video Steroids, baseball, and climate change: What do home runs and weather extremes have in common?
AtmosNews takes a lighthearted look at an unexpected analogy, explaining why some people call carbon dioxide (and the other greenhouse gases) the steroids of the climate system. (underline added)
This rather astonishing mis-characterization of the sources that have been posted aside this is a fine process. Perhaps RSs offered by others also explicitly refer to human-causes too. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 02:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal E
I don't really think that works. What does a politician know about climatology? Additionally, one of the main reasons this whole topic has become such an issue is that we want to avoid the political element as much as possible.
TornadoLGS (
talk)
15:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Give me a second to finish fixing it! There are so many edits here that I had to do this in pieces to get it through. - Tenebris 15:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This proposal strikes a different compromise which neither ignores mention nor forces an opinion. It acknowledges every important mention of Sandy + climate change which is said by a major person who is directly involved or by a highly informed group of people. The media storm on the subject can be ackonwledged with a simple sentence saying that there is a media storm on the subject and giving a few references. Other Wikipedia articles on the subject can be hyperlinked in the quote, but should not be discussed on this page.
As to "what does a politician know about climatology?" -- one might point out that a politician knows as much as a reporter, and several know as much as the average science writer. (Most science articles are not written by scientists.) However, what a head of government says makes a difference for present and future public policy, including disaster planning, and thus is noteworthy. - Tenebris 15:57, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Done. Proposal E is now in its final form. Thank you for your patience. - Tenebris 16:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment. This is overtly political. So Hurricane Sandy was caused by global warming... but other hurricanes weren't? If there were any connection to global warming, it should be discussed in the various global warming articles. At least fight these stupid political battle on the usual pages, spreading your thoughts to other articles doesn't magically give your argument more merit. -- NINTENDUDE 64 17:06, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think that not including Global Warming is overtly political. To do so would be to ignore the very large number of people making a connection. I think that it is certainly notable enough to necessitate inclusion, so the only problem I see remaining is that people do not like it. Falconus p t c 17:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal A - Climate change is a scientific issue, not a political one, and politically or religiously motivated scepticism should not be given undue weight. Some people would probably like the page Elephant to leave out information on the evolution of elephants. They would insist that the science is not settled on evolution, that discussing it on pages about individual animals gives undue weight to unproven claims, and that information about the alleged evolution of elephants can be included at Evolution. Wikipedia policy doesn't give their views equal validity, though. - Cal Engime ( talk) 22:18, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The proposals miss the most important point: it's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other? The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else. 76.218.9.50 ( talk) 23:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
→ Actually, I wanted to first make a couple of comments on the meteorology. Some of these should be vetted, as I'm using these based on secondary sources. There are three items that I'd heard about Sandy that I'd like to see clarified. The first is that I'd heard a Rossby wave in the polar jet stream 'swallowed' Sandy. I don't know if that is correct, but if so, it definitely belongs in the meteorology section. The second is the role of warm North Atlantic sea temperatures in the intensification of the storm. It is true that the N. Atlantic sea temperatures are warmer than usual, but I've heard conflicting reports as to whether this was a significant factor. Third, it was said that a cold front to the west merged or was going to merge with Sandy creating stronger conditions. I don't see a mention of these in the meteorology section. I would like to see some discussion since these were at least mentioned in the news reports. Whether they're correct or have some causal link to the storm, I don't know, but it would be helpful to see a resolution. For anyone trying to sift through all the newspaper reports, it would be helpful to have a retrospective on these points that is authoritative.
On the climate change issue - it strikes me that a separate section on GW would be warranted, but that might be divided into two parts. The first part has some evaluation of possible factors associated with GW that *might* have led to the intensity of the storm. In particular was the Rossby wave (if true) one causal factor? Was the warm N. Atlantic temperature? I'd heard both sides of this argued. In fact, the most reliable source I'd heard argued that the warm N. Atlantic temperatures weren't sufficient to cause the increase in intensity. Either way, I'd like to see some statement about it. Even if there is no resolution, it would be helpful to have references. The second part could be devoted to news coverage and political statements about possible linkage. The point, to me, is that Sandy has been linked by some to GW, and if there are limits to our ability to pin down causation, that's important to sort out. signed NSHSDad ← — Preceding unsigned comment added by NSHSDad ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal F: You all fail. Read some of the other fantastic hurricane articles that are so frequently earning Featured Article status here on Wikipedia, and then leave this article to that dedicated group that wrote those articles. Global warming or not, it has no place in the Meteorological History section. --- More specifically, I go with Proposal C or D.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.173.242 ( talk) 07:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal D - Given the recent nature of the phenomenon there is obviously no causal and direct evidence to say that this is a specific case of man made global warming of the political variety. And given its highly political nature, and its general irrelevancy to the discussion of the storm, it seems the only reason to include a section on climate change would be to support a position of that science. Given that it seems unnecessary for the purpose of the article, it seems pretty reasonable to simply leave it out. We shouldn't be drawing the speculative conclusions -- let the MSM do that. MHP Huck ( talk) 16:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal D - GW does not belong in an article about Sandy. Sandy belongs in an article about (evidence/arguments for) GW. The political campaign to insert GW into this article reminds me of the medieval placement of God and Jesus in every text to ensure that due deference was paid to the ideology of the time. With that thought in mind, we could find authoritative religious sources from the Middle East and the 700 Club who have said that the Jews and the gays caused the hurricane. Should we add a section about Jew/Gay responsibility for the hurricane? It would be no less absurd. I second everything that davidwr said earlier. Dturover ( talk) 23:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Please use this section for the time being to request edits not related to the content being disputed above until the protection is lifted. TornadoLGS ( talk) 23:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Request to append to the paragraphs on climate change:
Following the storm, Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."<ref>{{citation |url=http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-11-01/its-global-warming-stupid |title=It's Global Warming, Stupid |last=Barrett |first=Paul M. |date=November 1, 2012 |work=[[Bloomberg Businessweek]] }}</ref>
People mentioned this source above, but strangely it doesn't seem to be cited. Rather than pretend Businessweek is a particular authority to settle the matter, I think it makes more sense to point out their level of coverage. Steven Walling • talk 00:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please delete the least meaningful phrase in the English language from this sentence in the summary, and replace it with the proper preposition: "It is having various political effects in the United States especially in terms of [sic the general election scheduled for November 6, 2012." Should read, " ... especially on the general election ... ". Autodidact1 ( talk) 00:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Typo in section "Reactions to Obama administration disaster response" The end of the sentence preceding reference 268 should read: "criticized the administration for responding too quickly to the storm" instead of "criticized the administration for responding to quickly to the storm" (note the words in bold) Rishi.bedi ( talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Rishi.bedi ( talk) 00:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Itemized_deduction#casualty Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Typo in section "Effect on campaigning"
The final sentence of the section, preceding references 256 and 266 should read:
"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane."
instead of
"Also, the campaign purchased $5,000 dollars worth of supplies and gave them to attendees to give back for victims of the Hurricane. ."
(note the double punctuation in bold at the end of the sentence) Jscottcc ( talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
is not required for edits to unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. —
Mr. Stradivarius (
have a chat)
10:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)The "Political Impact" section has several issues which I think should be addressed.
So there you have it. Are any of these doable, admins? RedSoxFan2434 ( talk) 02:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Please edit the first sentence. It makes absolutely no grammatical sense: "Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone of that devastated portions of the Caribbean, Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern United States in late October." 'Hurricane Sandy was a tropical cyclone OF THAT devastated portions of...' Really? That's all the proofreading it gets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.180.73 ( talk) 12:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Edit requests November 4:
The following section contains speculative hypothesis which do not agree with the scientific consensus of experts in the field of hurricane study. It should be made clear that this opinion is not based on an actual analysis of physical data as is implied here but rather it is based on the predictions of climate change models developed by individuals with no expertise in hurricanes as proposed by the following:
According to their analysis (replace "analysis" with: "models"), global warming is expected (replace "expected" with: "predicted") to continue to increase ocean surface temperatures and the frequency of blocking patterns in the future.[34][35]
The following sentences are media coverage and of no scientific value in this debate and as such should not be in the section "Meteorological history". They should either be deleted or moved to the section "Political Impact" or a new section on media coverage:
Mark Fischetti of Scientific American proposed (replace "proposed" with: "speculates that") a more explicit link, arguing that the melting of Arctic ice caused a negative North Atlantic Oscillation, which fueled the expansion of Sandy by pushing the jet stream south.[36]
Bloomberg Businessweek devoted their cover to the topic of the impact of climate change, declaring "It's global warming, stupid."[37]
This inclusion of media speculation in this section by activist authors who lack any science credentials is troubling to say the least. There should be no debate needed about the inappropriate inclusion of these sentences in this section of the article.
It is clear to me that Wikipedia has still not cleaned up its act and that people of a like mind with William Connolley are still vandalizing articles here to promote their belief system. This is making Wikipedia a source of disinformation instead of the valuable resource that it could be. This is a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.111.158 ( talk) 22:00, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
The second sentence in the article is a fragment: "The eighteenth named storm and tenth hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season". Also, the first paragraph compares Sandy to Katrina twice -- seems a bit redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.188.227 ( talk) 13:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is getting press attention for a period in which there was a lack of information on climate change within it. It appears to me to be noteworthy that arguably the most widely read single article on the internet on Sandy had no climate change info. However user:NewsAndEventsGuy appears to disagree. What do we think about mentioning this meta-issue? Is it of no relevance whatsoever that a possible contributory cause of Sandy is whitewashed out of Sandy coverage?
Specifically, I think the article should have a sentence referenced to the PopSci article along the lines of "Wikipedia's coverage of climate change within its Hurricane Sandy article itself became a subject of media coverage."
I note the PopSci piece has been picked up by some other media, e.g. [15]
NewsAndEventsGuy thinks such a mention is 'hounding' and 'offpoint'. I don't think it is hounding, and I do think it is the whole point: out GW para begins "Global warming's influence on the storm is the subject of ongoing media discussion." So too is whether or not wikipedia, through the actions of a particular wikipedian, has in effect censored discussion of GW. It is certainly "related to meteorology or global warming" in that we're living in a time in which, arguably, the political is obscuring the scientific, just as we see in this article the political decision to denude the article of clime change information. Thoughts?-- Tagishsimon (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Far too "inside baseball" to mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Full moon brings high tide and it happened at the same time the hurricane hit the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.20.10 ( talk) 18:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
It was constantly on the news. There has to be some mention of it somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coretheapple ( talk • contribs) 18:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The Intro section should give an overview of the whole article. It is currently missing any mention of the global warming connections, since these are a significant part of the article. Can someone put a concise mention in the Lead? -- Ssilvers ( talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Whether the revised/updated AGW section survives or not the effect (not the cause) of the blocking pattern over Greenland really belongs in the meteorological section prior to the GW section. Anybody wanna work on that? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
A second storm is heading to the Northeast: [16]. Should this mentioned in the article? Maybe in a new aftermath section? -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This seems reliable. But is it notable? Undue? Other? This article had a lot of traffic (and still likely does). This disruption deserves a mention, I think. InedibleHulk ( talk) 05:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
(od) It was also in Grist.org 2 Nov 2012: Meet the man who’s kept climate change off the Hurricane Sandy Wikipedia page ... found on Climate change denial. 99.109.127.40 ( talk) 05:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove the global warming crap, it has no place on the page. None of it even has anything to do with Sandy, it's just a bunch of media quotes asking general questions about climate change and global warming.
99.136.196.166 ( talk) 15:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a
consensus for this alteration before using the {{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Begoon
talk
16:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Nothing was determined except that useless quotes from media outlets asking questions passes for citation of facts by reputable sources. This type of thing is exactly why most people think this site is a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.136.196.166 ( talk) 07:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Despite assorted hypothesize about possible factors contributing to Global Climate change, nobody has successfully proven that CO2 plays a major role. Any links and or references to IPCC, NASA or other organizations well known for lauding these hypothesize as theories, should be counter balanced with references to organizations with a different view point, like the NIPCC.
To preserve the integrity of WIKI, any mention of "Global Warming" at all, should contain disclaimers that its causes are currently matters of debate and specifically that Man Made AGW has never been proved.
Personally, in my opinion, the Idea that miniscule increases in a naturally occurring, sub 400 ( [1]) ppm gas (CO2) has some larger impact on temperatures doesn't add up - especially when other gases with close IR absorption rates exist in much higher quantities (like O2 at 21%); while, increased solar activity (and the accompanying increases in UV output) contributing more energy to the earth (most of which translates into heat at some point - for example: at the Ozone layer (UV), the Ionosphere (CME), throughout the atmosphere or after contact with objects on the ground) makes a whole lot more sense.
Ed34222 ( talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC) Ed34222 2012-11-07 Ed34222 ( talk) 06:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not think the current version accurately reports what Dr. Trenberth said about the NAO. Our text reads Dr. Trenberth, however, argued that the negative NAO was just part of the oscillation's natural phases However the cited source says he only said this has to be the null hypothesis and he opined that the studies have not (yet) shown cause and effect. Isn't that a more of a "so far we are speculating" type of opinion than the "it definitely did not happen that way" sort of thing we currently say he said? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 14:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure if the above article stands alone-- it seems to make a note of it on this page. Can other editors offer an opinion on the matter? I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 08:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I would definitely support including info about Occupy Sandy in the "Relief efforts" section. -- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
It seems that CNN is reporting that 110 have died in the United States. However, UPI and other news outlets are saying 113 died. Unfortunately, the death toll is likely to rise, however is there a way to confirm the exact number now? -- Luke (Talk) 15:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
PageInformer: The death toll is bound to rise after floods and disease caused by rats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PageInformer ( talk • contribs) 02:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
The first part of the article mentions 52 deaths in Jamaica and 11 in Cuba, but the final death toll doesn't include those? Why don't they "count"? 41.10.165.213 ( talk) 06:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Apparently the National Hurricane Center declared Sandy a post-tropical storm before landfall. [17] [18] Shouldn't this be reflected in the article name? If not, this should be mentioned in the article, possibly in a "Cleanup" section.-- Auric ( talk) 03:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not about "the possible effects of climate change," and the related question of "why mention it for this storm and not for every other?" The issue is that Sandy is now the "poster child" of the climate change debate. No other storm IN HISTORY has this status in political and media commentary -- Katrina certainly did not. The issue should have its own sub-section within the article, along the lines of "Effect of Sandy on climate change commentary," completely without debating whether this storm itself is specifically different from any other in terms of whether or not it is attributable to climate change. I'm amazed that the "poster child" aspect isn't the bottom-line question being discussed, instead of red herrings like "Well, why isn't this brought up for EVERY storm?" which is a non-starter and a rhetorical trump card, nothing else. 76.218.9.50 ( talk)! —Preceding undated comment added 07:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
We have about 200 years of solid data with quite a few east coast hurricanes. Sandy isn't anything special. -- Matthurricane ( talk) 09:47, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Lead sentence says "largest Atlantic hurricane on record" - but rest of lead and the Meterological section do not make it clear what that means, unless it's in jargon deep down there somewhere that the casual reader might not catch it. I get the impression from what I've read it means in actual size and width, but it's not as strong as, say, the 1938 New England hurricane which was category 3 or more. So maybe that could be clarified in both sections so in the future people hearing about a "smaller" hurricane (that's category 2 or 3) coming and reading this article think they can relax. Thanks. CarolMooreDC 19:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Doesn't this belong in the pol section rather than the met one? He's a great guy, and so on, but his views on the linkage to GW aren't a scientist / climatologist / meteorologists views; he's a pol William M. Connolley ( talk) 23:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I still think inquiring minds still want to know: Is Sandy a woman's name or a man's? As this perfectly acceptable reliable source says, she's a lady (or a storm with a woman's name, anyway). Thoughts, after weeks of consideration? InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone missed the original proposal, please save me from repeating myself. InedibleHulk ( talk) 02:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Oppose footnote or any mention of the name meaning male/female With all the articles that need work we are going on about this? Let the reader choose and go through their minds here. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Numerous meteorological RSs talk about the extraordinary energy and size of Sandy despite it being "only" a category 1 (or words to that effect)..... Lots of EMS people were tearing out there hair trying to convince folks to take it seriously even though it was "only" a category 1..... In this diff Prototime ( talk · contribs) says we should not repeat the adjective used by these RSs (even though it is part of their main point) because Prototime feels we should not repeat RS language that is UNENCYCLOPEDIC. This a non-argument, much less a reason for trumping RS content, for reasons found in WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. What do others think? BTW... Prototime also defended the deletion saying that the data speaks for itself. Star Treks Dr McCoy would disagree. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I know Sandy was becoming extratropical as it bore down on the coast but could it be mentioned that it was the first tropical cyclone to cross into NJ while still carrying hurricane force winds since 1903? I know that Irene was still a minimal hurricane in NJ but technically it wasn't. Maybe in Post analasis they'll say it was still tropical in NJ. 76.124.224.179 ( talk) 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Not sure where to post this. It is not a big deal, but one of the pictures you have in the Hurricane Sandy article of several damaged beachfront houses is posted as being Long Beach Island, but it is actually Mantoloking. One of the houses in the picture is my house, which is why I'm sending the correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.216.149 ( talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
As a Canadian I am surprised Canada is included in this article. This storm had very little impact in Canada compared to any number of other annual storms we have in this country, especially in the winter. I don't know why space is being wasted on Canada in various places here. I can point to any random blizzard during the winter in Central Canada or Quebec and likely find higher numbers of people without power or lives lost or any other diaster metric, and none of these have Wikipedia articles. Just because Sandy was big news doesn't mean we have to stick every country it touched into the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.88.123 ( talk) 02:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
$100 million in insured damage (total damage likely higher) is hardly an insignificant impact. CrazyC83 ( talk) 00:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
NWS Morehead City/Newport appeared to primarily use this article to write their report. While the data has since been updated (death toll increased to 253 from 191), the track and wording mostly comes off an old version. CrazyC83 ( talk) 01:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that they used us as the source. CrazyC83 ( talk) 01:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly biased. Like it or not, Global Warming/Climate Change is a *theory,* not an established fact; and yet the article is presenting it as if it were established. Even more importantly, there are no alternative perspectives or theories presented. There's no room for debate on that, it clearly, definitely meets the definition of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.204.112 ( talk) 04:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Andrew M. Cuomo declared that Hurricane Sandy had been “more impactful” than Hurricane Katrina. [2]
“affected many, many more people and places than Katrina,”
This would be ae an encyclopedic addition with the suggested quotation from the Governor of New York.
216.250.156.66 ( talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Should we create a section based on the various names that Hurricane Sandy acquired (either from the media or the NHC etc.) as it moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.80.209 ( talk) 01:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)