A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 30, 2018, January 30, 2022, and January 30, 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
See discussion re date at Talk:Bristol Channel
This article sounds more like a debate on whether the flood was caused by a Tsunami or not. It should rather be an article on the Bristol Channel Floods of 1607. There is also it must be said, extremely little evidence that the floods were the result of a tsunami and more focus should be given to the more accepted theories on the flood's cause. Rather the tsunami theory is given most attention as if it is a widely accepted theory on the cause of the flood when it is not. By far most research I have seen say the evidence points to a tidal surge similar to the one which struck the other side of Britain in 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
My sources describe not just that which occurred in the Severn Water, but also surges which breeched the banks 3 months later on the east coast of the UK in Marchland, nr Lynne in Norfolk and the Isle of Sheppey and Boston, Lincs. It killed cattle and crops. It happened the week before Easter in 1607 (Easter was April 15th in 1607). Miracle vpon miracle. Or A true relation of the great floods which happened in Couentry, in Lynne, and other places, on the 16. and 17. dayes of Aprill last past, in this present yeare of our Lord God, 1607 Zorgster ( talk) 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It would also be a surprising coincidence for the only tsunami to hit the UK in recorded history to coincide with an astronomical high tide. 87.112.111.117 ( talk) 23:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed a broken reference to Bryant & Haslett. This is not a "POV push against the tsunami theory", in fact I added the URL so that there paper in the Journal of Geology could be accessed by other users. My reasoning is based on working through the Wikiproject Somerset cleanup listing where this article shows up as lacking in text citations - which is not true so I removed the banners. My other action was to remove those in external links which are already used as references.— Rod talk 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be there for no obvious reason! Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Welsh for Bristol Channel floods is Llif Mawr Môr Hafren' (literally: "Big Severn Estuary Flood", I don't dispute that (although llifogydd might be more accurate?) But is the Welsh translation particularly relevant to the article? As far as I know, the coastal parts of South Wales affected by the floods were, as they are today, predominantly English-speaking. The article currently doesn't include any contemporary Welsh language sources and if there are any I'd be pleased to see them. The memorial brass set into the wall of St Mary's in Goldcliff, three years later, is very certainly in English. Diolch yn fawr. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have made some edits to try and help fix this article's serious issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. As written before, this article was presenting a single paper (the Horsburgh & Horritt reference) as having completely upended the previous tsunami theory and definitively established the storm surge theory as correct. This is not at all appropriate, regardless of how convincing that paper may be, unless subsequent references can be provided showing that this paper did indeed fundamentally change the scholarly consensus and was not simply another theory. Also, it is certainy of note that much of this information was added by none other than User:Kevinhorsburgh, one of that paper's authors, so we should view this with even more scrutiny than usual. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The tsunami hypothesis is a fringe theory from a single research team (Haslett & Bryant) (albeit enthusiastically parroted by the media), and the H&H source comprehensively refutes it. The storm surge theory is clearly the consensuses in the literature, this is self-evident from a basic search of sources:
There are no WP:UNDUE or WP:COI problems here. What we certainly shouldn't be doing is giving the tsunami hypothesis equal weight, or present it as anything other than a refuted theory.---- Pontificalibus 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The text from "Severn Tidings" here, is as follows:
The text in the article is this;
Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"Flood 400" is a church and community partnership setup in 2006 to commemorate the ‘Great Flood of 1607 in 2007.compared to
"In 2006 "Flood 400", a church and community partnership, was set up to commemorate the Great Flood.
A commemorative religious service was held on the actual anniversary of the "Great Flood" January 30th 2007 - with the Bishop of Bath & Wells.vs
A commemorative service was held, on the anniversary day in 2007, with the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
A series of events are taking place throughout2007 under the banner of ‘Flood 400’ focused around the only public buildings in these communities; the church, village hall & public houses. Events include lectures, exhibitions, religious services, school visits, guided tours & walks, etc. The culmination of these events will be a festival weekend which will include heritage exhibitions, a flower & craft festival, guided tours, audio visual displays, guest speakers and choral & music concerts.vs
A series of events took place, throughout the year, centred on the public buildings in the villages of Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick and included exhibitions, lectures, religious services, school visits, guided tours and walks. A festival weekend took place between 24 and 28 May 2007.
The partnership "Flood 400" was created in 2006 to commemorate the anniversary of the flood, bringing together church and community., for instance. I don't write in British English, however, so the grammar might be off. Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
References
The original text read: "On the 400th anniversary, 30 January 2007, [[BBC Somerset]] looked at the possible causes and asked whether it could happen again in the [[Somerset|county]].<ref>{{harvnb|BBC staff|2014}}</ref>" Sennecaster added "c<ref>''Severn Tidings'', Issue 9, Winter 2006-07, Severn Estuary Partnership, page 6.</ref>". I reverted as it makes no sense to add a "c" with a citation. Sennecaster restored the edit with the comment "copyright violation removals should not be reverted without explanation" I reverted again with the comment "Adding a source is not a removal of a copyright violation". This was again reverted with "there was more than a source added. For the edit to be "adding a source" then the only thing the edit should contain is the addition of a reference without text. This is a WP:CLOP/WP:CV removal. If you want to revert further, go to the talk page". I agree that there was not only a source as there was also a text "c", but I do not see how the edit makes sense or how it can relate a copyright violation. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 30, 2018, January 30, 2022, and January 30, 2023. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
See discussion re date at Talk:Bristol Channel
This article sounds more like a debate on whether the flood was caused by a Tsunami or not. It should rather be an article on the Bristol Channel Floods of 1607. There is also it must be said, extremely little evidence that the floods were the result of a tsunami and more focus should be given to the more accepted theories on the flood's cause. Rather the tsunami theory is given most attention as if it is a widely accepted theory on the cause of the flood when it is not. By far most research I have seen say the evidence points to a tidal surge similar to the one which struck the other side of Britain in 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 ( talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
My sources describe not just that which occurred in the Severn Water, but also surges which breeched the banks 3 months later on the east coast of the UK in Marchland, nr Lynne in Norfolk and the Isle of Sheppey and Boston, Lincs. It killed cattle and crops. It happened the week before Easter in 1607 (Easter was April 15th in 1607). Miracle vpon miracle. Or A true relation of the great floods which happened in Couentry, in Lynne, and other places, on the 16. and 17. dayes of Aprill last past, in this present yeare of our Lord God, 1607 Zorgster ( talk) 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It would also be a surprising coincidence for the only tsunami to hit the UK in recorded history to coincide with an astronomical high tide. 87.112.111.117 ( talk) 23:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I recently removed a broken reference to Bryant & Haslett. This is not a "POV push against the tsunami theory", in fact I added the URL so that there paper in the Journal of Geology could be accessed by other users. My reasoning is based on working through the Wikiproject Somerset cleanup listing where this article shows up as lacking in text citations - which is not true so I removed the banners. My other action was to remove those in external links which are already used as references.— Rod talk 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
Seems to be there for no obvious reason! Ender's Shadow Snr ( talk) 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the Welsh for Bristol Channel floods is Llif Mawr Môr Hafren' (literally: "Big Severn Estuary Flood", I don't dispute that (although llifogydd might be more accurate?) But is the Welsh translation particularly relevant to the article? As far as I know, the coastal parts of South Wales affected by the floods were, as they are today, predominantly English-speaking. The article currently doesn't include any contemporary Welsh language sources and if there are any I'd be pleased to see them. The memorial brass set into the wall of St Mary's in Goldcliff, three years later, is very certainly in English. Diolch yn fawr. Martinevans123 ( talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I have made some edits to try and help fix this article's serious issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. As written before, this article was presenting a single paper (the Horsburgh & Horritt reference) as having completely upended the previous tsunami theory and definitively established the storm surge theory as correct. This is not at all appropriate, regardless of how convincing that paper may be, unless subsequent references can be provided showing that this paper did indeed fundamentally change the scholarly consensus and was not simply another theory. Also, it is certainy of note that much of this information was added by none other than User:Kevinhorsburgh, one of that paper's authors, so we should view this with even more scrutiny than usual. - Elmer Clark ( talk) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
The tsunami hypothesis is a fringe theory from a single research team (Haslett & Bryant) (albeit enthusiastically parroted by the media), and the H&H source comprehensively refutes it. The storm surge theory is clearly the consensuses in the literature, this is self-evident from a basic search of sources:
There are no WP:UNDUE or WP:COI problems here. What we certainly shouldn't be doing is giving the tsunami hypothesis equal weight, or present it as anything other than a refuted theory.---- Pontificalibus 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
The text from "Severn Tidings" here, is as follows:
The text in the article is this;
Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
"Flood 400" is a church and community partnership setup in 2006 to commemorate the ‘Great Flood of 1607 in 2007.compared to
"In 2006 "Flood 400", a church and community partnership, was set up to commemorate the Great Flood.
A commemorative religious service was held on the actual anniversary of the "Great Flood" January 30th 2007 - with the Bishop of Bath & Wells.vs
A commemorative service was held, on the anniversary day in 2007, with the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
A series of events are taking place throughout2007 under the banner of ‘Flood 400’ focused around the only public buildings in these communities; the church, village hall & public houses. Events include lectures, exhibitions, religious services, school visits, guided tours & walks, etc. The culmination of these events will be a festival weekend which will include heritage exhibitions, a flower & craft festival, guided tours, audio visual displays, guest speakers and choral & music concerts.vs
A series of events took place, throughout the year, centred on the public buildings in the villages of Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick and included exhibitions, lectures, religious services, school visits, guided tours and walks. A festival weekend took place between 24 and 28 May 2007.
The partnership "Flood 400" was created in 2006 to commemorate the anniversary of the flood, bringing together church and community., for instance. I don't write in British English, however, so the grammar might be off. Sennecaster ( Chat) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
References
The original text read: "On the 400th anniversary, 30 January 2007, [[BBC Somerset]] looked at the possible causes and asked whether it could happen again in the [[Somerset|county]].<ref>{{harvnb|BBC staff|2014}}</ref>" Sennecaster added "c<ref>''Severn Tidings'', Issue 9, Winter 2006-07, Severn Estuary Partnership, page 6.</ref>". I reverted as it makes no sense to add a "c" with a citation. Sennecaster restored the edit with the comment "copyright violation removals should not be reverted without explanation" I reverted again with the comment "Adding a source is not a removal of a copyright violation". This was again reverted with "there was more than a source added. For the edit to be "adding a source" then the only thing the edit should contain is the addition of a reference without text. This is a WP:CLOP/WP:CV removal. If you want to revert further, go to the talk page". I agree that there was not only a source as there was also a text "c", but I do not see how the edit makes sense or how it can relate a copyright violation. Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)