Talk:Hurricane Helene

5th Deadliest CONUS hurricane since 2000

As of this typing Helene has 133 dead in the CONUS and we currently have this claim in the article. "Hurricane Helene is the 5th deadliest hurricane to strike the CONUS since the year 2000." I know 1. Katrina, 2. Sandy, 3. Ian but what is 4. ? next non-Helene storm I believe is Ike but it has 129 which would make Helene the 4th deadliest not 5th. Unless we are counting Maria but that isn't a CONUS storm. Also not sure why we have this claim really since it is likely Helene is going to exceed both Ian and Sandy before very long. --Kuzwa (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, this should be removed and re-instated in a month. Keep in mind, as of October 1, many journalists aren't able to access most areas impacted by Helene due to mudslides and ravines created by the hurricane. Even with that in mind, the death toll has rapidly increased and over 600 people are unaccounted for. We should probably add that back after most of Helene's deaths are known. Tavantius (talk) 03:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - remove, reconsider later. I did hear that same 5th place rank stated on the PBS Newshour yesterday (I think?), but I believe the death toll went up significantly today. Dcs002 (talk) 04:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I did the numbers.

Helene is AS OF NOW at 133 deaths, which would make it fourth, not fifth. Let me know if I missed something though.

1. Katrina: 1,392
2. Sandy: 160
3. Ian: 156
4. Helene: 133
5. Rita: 120
6. Ike: 113
7. Harvey: 106

ImAdhafera (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems correct based on this list from USA Today earlier in the week. (Though they have Sandy at 219, which might be correct with US to non-US counting, and Harvey at 103. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. This should be reinstated when the death toll is finalized/stablizes. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Considering Helene is now the 2nd-deadliest after Katrina, and there is a colossal gap between the two, I'd say this can be safely kept at this point and hope the death toll doesn't get any (or much) higher. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This is all true, but I think if we're going to say 2nd deadliest to hit the contiguous/mainland/continental United States, I recommend at least we state that the reason why we are making this distinction is because the #1 deadliest for Americans since 2000 was Maria, not Katrina. My personal preference is for us to just not make that distinction between the contiguous US and the rest of the US, as I can't think of any particular benefits to excluding Maria from the list or Puerto Rico from the rest of the United States (they are American citizens as much as those in the mainland). I find that this "second deadliest" stat only has the effect of misleading and confusing people. I'm even seeing headlines from AccuWeather and The Independent (both of which should know better) like "Helene is 2nd-deadliest U.S. hurricane in 50 years" or "Hurricane Helene is deadliest storm since Katrina as fatalities reach 182" which is sloppy misinformation. Let's not run with the "deadliest since Katrina" line. It's catchy, but it's wrong. Adding the word "contiguous" makes it correct, but still ultimately confuses the reader if we do not mention why that word is necessary in the first place.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Helene tornado outbreak

I belive the tornado outbreak from Helene should have a septate article. In total, at least 32 tornadoes have been confirmed in a 2 day period, and could eventually reach over 40. The frist day has a tornado cause 2 deaths in Georgia, and has multiple long tracked and large, although weak tornadoes. The second day had numerous tornadoes, including 2 significant. 1 casued 15 injuries in Rocky mount, 4 critical. 2600:1014:B165:2A44:0:52:D3FA:DC01 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

It is significant enough for a separate article. It happened over a 2 day period, and most recent hurricane tornado outbreaks with articles have had similar numbers in total tornado counts. 76.84.166.41 (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

"Other stuff exists" is not a valid argument in this case. And no, the outbreak in and of itself is not noteworthy, given the severity of Helene's overall impact in the SE states. A "Hurricane Helene tornado outbreak" article would be little more than a content fork of this and "Effects of Hurricane Helene in..." articles. Drdpw (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

So why can a cat 1 hurricane that spawns 30 tornsoes in 5 days have a tornado outbreak article but a cat 4 that spawns 35+ in 2 days can’t? This is just hypocritical at this point. Hurricaneeditor18 (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Please read what Drdpw said. _ZZ^Z'S 20:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I did, but it seems that after Beryl’s outbreak, no other tropical tornado outbreaks are notable enough to have an article. Hurricaneeditor18 (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just thought, what if instead of having a separate outbreak article, there is a section in this article for the outbreak? Sort of like having a list of deaths from a natural disaster in the article itself rather then making a separate article? Hurricaneeditor18 (talk) 20:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hurricane Clyde: Another one lol, you know what I mean. ;) SirMemeGod  22:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Just WP:Deny, that’s what the higher ups have told me Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

But for future reference @Sir MemeGod, please don’t ping me about Lokicat socks. I’m trying to distance myself from that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 23:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

And to answer the question on whether or not the tornadoes from Helene deserve a separate article. My opinion would probably be no. Maybe a mention in and redirect to Tornadoes of 2024; but I don’t think it’s notable enough. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

To which I will add; that it’s already on Tornadoes of 2024. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 02:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no need for a tornado outbreak article. There were only 2 significant tornadoes produced by Helene and that information can fit in the article without any unnecessary expansion into an article. ChessEric 06:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional subarticles

I know North Carolina has one, but should we make another? The article is rapidly approaching on 8,000 words and is already over 7,000 and it seems likely it’ll cross 8,000 in the coming days as more information comes out. Florida, Georgia, South Carolina and Tennessee all had devastating impacts. Obviously we can’t split out all of them, however, I was thinking we could split out one of them (Effects of Hurricane Helene in Florida or Effects of Hurricane Helene in Georgia tend to make the most sense), and then size will be less of an issue when expansion happens. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking of doing what the IP two topics up wanted to do, spin off the tornado outbreak. Tavantius (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The tornado outbreak in and of itself is not all that notable. What is notable is the broader impact/aftermath of Helene (tornadoes included) in states such as Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. The impact and aftermath sections of the main article are getting very large, and sub articles on effects in various states would be an excellent to pare down the article. Drdpw (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll probably work on the Georgia impacts first as Helene's impacts there are actually more severe than in Florida. Tavantius (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The tornado outbreak is not notable enough for a spin-off article. ChessEric 06:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I would do those two and Tennessee. Lan Pee (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you help me on the Georgia draft? It's here. Tavantius (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Disagree with having a section for every county, we should instead focus on regions or else it will get impossible to fill 2600:4808:610:7C01:49F7:A3F0:2A96:2B1C (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Tavantius: that's excessive section hierarchy. There's no reason to do a county by county breakdown like that. Noah, BSBA^Talk 04:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, I saw that in the North Carolina impacts, however, I just done a list. If there aren't enough impacts to justify a county's section, I'll merge it elsewhere... Tavantius (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd start by using the 5 geographic regions of Georgia. Noah, BSBA^Talk 12:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I think Florida makes the most sense to have next, since it's a large state, and is where the landfall occurred. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as intensity in each state, that will be determined in the TCR. That said, operationally, it was 120 kt in Florida, 95 kt in Georgia and 60 kt in South Carolina, based on the advisories when the eyewall (or remnant core) reached each state. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia, so I wouldn't be much use in helping with this, but I would posit that a "Meteorological History of Hurricane Helene" article would make some sense, even if it's not priority #1 AutisticLoser (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Should info about conspiracy theories about Helene have their own subsection in the "aftermath" section. This piece by NPR, this by Forbes, and this by The New Republic discuss some of them. Tavantius (talk) 15:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak Oppose/Neutral: Although I feel like conspiracy theories are unusually prevalent for this disaster(maybe even the most since the Lahaina fire), I do not want to give these conspiracy theories a platform over here, even if it means denouncing them. I feel like the situation is similar to "hate watching" a streamer: you're still increasing engagement. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing to Neutral as I realized that the Maui fire article has a subsection in the Response section. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

We should always be careful about LIES that are meant to generate website clicks and/or spread twisted political agendas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Changing to Weak Support as I surf Twitter/X and realize there are way more conspiracy theories being spread by prominent public figures than I thought. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: The aftermath section needs expansion in general and I believe that given with how there are national politicians such Marjorie Taylor Greene throwing their hat into the conspiracy ring, it will be necessary to truly detail the implications of this storm. Donald Trump's conspiracies that the federal government and North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper were "ignoring Republican areas" and that Biden was ignoring Georgia Governor Brian Kemp have already been mentioned in the aftermath section. We should be careful to try to only include conspiracies that gain notable following or are spread by notable figures, though. Raskuly (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracy theories seem to have really ramped up in the last few days... Raskuly (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, though I would like more sources to establish that it isn't just a fringe detail. ✶Quxyz✶ 23:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Such a subsection would be WP:UNDUE here.

Noah, BSBA^Talk 01:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose per Noah. ChessEric 04:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. Conspiracy Theory subsections are becoming overbearing and you can attach one to almost every article on Wikipedia if you look hard enough. I concur with @Drdpw that we need a spin off article because the political section is going to balloon quite a bit over the next month or so. HoadRog (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: The conspiracy theories are definitely gaining prominence and being spread by prominent, non-fringe figures. Cowlan (talk) 01:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, though perhaps the section's name should include "misinformation" and/or "disinformation" (e.g., "Spread of disinformation and conspiracy theories" as the section heading). One reason I support this is that the spread is actually hampering relief efforts in various ways. FEMA has had to address it. Some of the conspiracy theories are also linked to forms of hate (e.g., anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, and the anti-immigrant ones already mentioned in the Political response section). FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support The amount of coverage the conspiracy theories are getting in media, and the amount of elected Republican officials pushing back against it is noteworthy. BootsED (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Support: I'm already seeing a lot of news articles and TV segments about the conspiracy theories alone. The whole thing is escalating the same way the Springfield pet-eating hoax did after the Trump-Harris debate. This is starting to become a notable topic that should warrant its own subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakhadiver (talk • contribs)

Oppose because expanding coverage of conspiracy theories beyond what is currently included will balloon overall size of the article and give too much weight to this aspect of the storm aftermath. The political response subsection is presently much larger than the relief efforts. I would rather see a spin off article on conspiracy theories related to hurricane Helene. Drdpw (talk) 01:23, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support Ample coverage for this in reliable sources. [1] If it gets too large, spin it out to a separate article. Dream Focus 01:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Should conspiracy theories related to Helene get their own article later

So far, there is a growing consensus that including a subsection on Helene-related conspiracies is undue. However, there are also some who state that this should get their own article. Should this happen? Tavantius (talk) 21:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it gets put under something more general like Political effects and commentary of Hurricane Helene to avoid it from being to totally fringe. It should be decently large, though. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This tbh. A similar example would be COVID-19 misinformation, although this would definitely be of a smaller scale than that article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems the conspiracies/political narrative spun out of Helene are being continued by prominent figures ahead of Milton impacting Florida. Depending on Milton's impact, I could see it possibly ballooning into something like Political effects of 2024 Atlantic Hurricane Season or something like that. Cowlan (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cowlan I agree with you, however, should a draft of this be made at Political effects of the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season? Tavantius (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that would be best Cowlan (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this comment, especially with conspiracy theories with Milton. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 22:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly feel like that might be hard to gauge until after November, at least for larger trends like a Blue or Red Wave. Also, would this be exclusive to the United States or all political effects in all nations? ✶Quxyz✶ 22:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

It definitely depends on the impact Milton has, but regardless these conspiracies are continuing to gain momentum among prominent politicians and figures. Springfield pet-eating hoax I feel is remarkably similar, and that has an article despite not being about long-term electoral effects. Cowlan (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This might be slightly unwieldy but I'd prefer Political effects of the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season in the United States to clarify that this is exclusively the United States as other nations I believe were heavily impacted by Beryl and would have seen affects. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, IF this article gets made, then would it be a list of conspiracy theories or a regular article? Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If it's based off of the political effects, it would be a full article. ✶Quxyz✶ 17:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm already seeing articles about conspiracy theories for Helene impacting conspiracy theories for Milton. Every single major reliable source has several articles about the amount of conspiracy theories coming from Republicans and right-wing sources, and at this point the amount of coverage would likely necessitate a separate article to be made that would be linked to on the Helene and Milton pages. Likely called something along the lines of 2024 United States hurricane conspiracy theories. BootsED (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Huh. Someone already made an article on it... It's here. Tavantius (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging some who participated in this discussion: @BootsED @Cowlan @Quxyz @Wildfireupdateman Tavantius (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update! BootsED (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Cowlan (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the update Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

More than 1,400 still missing?

I haven't seen any other sources reporting this as of yet but The Guardian is generally a reliable source that should not be discounted and it says here [2] that more than 1,400 people are still missing as of Friday evening which is pretty recent. Should we include a hatnote with the 1,400 figure? Undescribed (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see that another editor has added a note to the fatality count stating the Guardian figure, which seems apropos for now – until other outlets follow suit or The Guardian makes a revision, as numbers fluctuate. Very tragic all around. Drdpw (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. A note seems prudent at this juncture until, as you said, either other outlets follow suit or The Guardian makes a revision to their total. The Guardian is typically a very reliable source which is why it should at least be mentioned in a note. Hopefully the 1,400 missing figure is not even close to reality. Even the current mainstream estimates of 240 deaths with 285 still missing is devastating enough already. Undescribed (talk) 13:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

If only 1 source says it, it should be treated as wrong. 76.84.166.41 (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

It could be the start of a trend though unfortunately, we just don't know for sure yet. Like I said before The Guardian is a very reliable source that needs to be considered. Which is why I think it should at least be mentioned in a note until search and rescue operations officially end. By then we should hopefully have a better understanding of how many are dead or still missing. Also, it mentions that there were over 1,400 missing as of last night, which is pretty recent, unlike the figures from last week of 1,300 or so missing. Undescribed (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't treat it as wrong yet, we need to wait or just treat it as right. The Guardian is considered reliable (see WP:THEGUARDIAN). SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 14:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Article for Draft:Hurricane Helene disaster relief

I think there is likely a need to create an article for Hurricane Helene disaster relief in the style of Hurricane Katrina disaster relief. The relief effort is going to continue for months, likely longer in many cases. Thriley (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, I believe creating this article is premature. We should wait until the information exceeds 20k bytes. _ZZ^Z'S 16:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I got new photos

Here!

Is there any of these we could add to the article? Trade (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

There are already quite a few high-quality photos in the impacts section. A lot of the photos provided in the link are rather trivial, minor, or the subject is unclear. The house in Columbia County and the image with the church are my favourites. However, the Columbia house image's has a lot of the FOV taken up by the car door and the tree isn't clear to see on church image. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:02, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

The image with the traffic lights might also be of interest as the subject it clear and noticeable. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:04, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

there is no SYNTH in this edit

it should be restored, Anotherperson123

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Helene&diff=prev&oldid=1250040158 soibangla (talk) 04:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that one source says that public officials are saying that false and misleading information in general is causing confusion, and another source says that one former public official says that what Trump is saying is spreading confusion, but the sentence as it stands says that public officials are saying that false and misleading information spread by Trump is causing confusion. Anotherperson123 (talk) 05:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Don't all three sources mention that Trump is spreading these lies and confusion? Social media and other MAGA sources then repeat it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's the disputed content. Let's tweak it, if necessary, to make it work. That's what WP:Preserve says to do. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

References

I don't find that an adequate reason to remove this edit, PackMecEng

cc: Valjean

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Helene&diff=prev&oldid=1250100623 soibangla (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Soibangla, I didn't get the ping, but still got an email notification. I agree with PackMecEng that this section is not necessary. Please just add this to the previous section and indent and tweak as necessary. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

so the content is OK but the section isn't? so is that good reason to remove the content altogether? soibangla (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph is WP:UNDUE here. Drdpw (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

uh-huh, yeah

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

soibangla (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that content seems to be backed up by the sources, so it should be restored. Let's seek a consensus here. On what basis is it still removed? The sources agree with that wording.-- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The PBS source is an interview with one former public official who says that what Trump is saying is spreading confusion. The CNN source doesn't mention any public officials saying that Trump is spreading confusion. The NBC source also doesn't mention any public officials explicitly saying that Trump is spreading confusion.

Conspiracy theories are not mentioned.

Also "lies, distortions, disinformation, and conspiracy theories" could be summarized just by saying disinformation as the other things are either synonyms for or types of disinformation. Anotherperson123 (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

NewsHour reported those words as news before the interview began soibangla (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No reason for this to be it's own section, its the content from above. Also don't delete my comment again. PackMecEng (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

but you deleted the whole thing rather than make a simple fix. HAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

My comment here was in relation to making a redundant section on the talk page and your deletion of my comment here. The content itself is undue and a synth of sources. PackMecEng (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The sources agree with that wording. If you still see an issue, then provide a tweak that resolves it. Follow PRESERVE by fixing, not deleting. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

One of the exceptions to preserve is undue, per WP:DON'T PRESERVE. We don't document EVERYTHING. PackMecEng (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

UNDUE is commonly abused when an editor really means WP:IDONTLIKEIT soibangla (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. Not sure what you expect me to do with that personal trivia. PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

it was a new topic specifically about your action and your words. then you say it's a section issue rather than a content issue, so when I wondered why you didn't just do an easy fix for the section issue, you now say it's synth and undue, without substantiating either. HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it was not worth having in the article? How is that confusing to you, what can I do to help? PackMecEng (talk) 18:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

yeah yeah, sure. nuthin' to see here, folks!

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

soibangla (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

How about splitting it and placing the sources at the right spots?

By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

How's that? The content is very DUE. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I recommend we adopt this proposal. what do others think? soibangla (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Same issues as before, so no. PackMecEng (talk) 18:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You haven't proven your point, so it doesn't count. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You don't have to like or agree with it. At the end of the day the ones is on you to secure consensus for inclusion and you have failed to do so. You don't get to just discount points you dislike. PackMecEng (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Not quite. See WP:CONSENSUS. Equally, no single editor has a veto. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually yes, the responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. This is not a single editor veto situation either. It was reverted by a few people and challenged by others here and WP:ORN. PackMecEng (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

the ORN discussion did not seek to arbitrate a dispute, it requested clarification of synth, those involved there are not involved here. how was the edit reverted by a few people? soibangla (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It was reverted by 3 people. Anotherperson123,[3] Myself,[4] and Drdpw.[5] PackMecEng (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

some editors seem to have proven they really, really don't like reliable sources calling Trump an outright liar and a conspiracy theorist as he disrupts a life/death crisis for several days. what could possibly cause them to feel that way? I, for one, am baffled. soibangla (talk) 19:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just noting that Soibangla brought this issue to WP:ORN where everyone found that it was, in fact, synth.[6] So hopefully that puts this issue to rest and we can move on. PackMecEng (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  with the original phrasing as presented there, not the revised phrasing from Valjean:

  By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

  soibangla (talk) 13:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Correct, the text found to be classic synth by ORN was:

  By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories which public officials said created confusion and hindered recovery efforts

  vs the text that Valjean is now offering:

  By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories. Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts.

  To me they are pretty much the same with the same exact issue, though you are free to get wider opinions of course. PackMecEng (talk) 13:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PackMecEng: since SYNTH can sometimes be subtle, hence the disagreements among very experienced editors here and at NORN, please propose some wording that would resolve the issue. I provided an attempt. What do you think of it? Did I go far enough to resolve it, or not far enough? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

here's a couple more sources:

• "Donald Trump's many, many lies about Hurricane Helene, debunked". Vox (website). Since Hurricane Helene decimated parts of western North Carolina last week, former President Donald Trump has seized on the tragedy to perpetuate lies about the federal response, sowing chaos and confusion as officials scramble to help those affected
• "Survivors wait for aid as Trump's lies help cloud Helene response". France 24. Ten days after Helene carved a path of destruction through the southeastern United States, many residents are still cut off -- from federal assistance, from electricity and running water, and, crucially, from accurate information. Trump and others have poured false claims and conspiracy theories into that vacuum, targeting in particular the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) -- which, when a US state asks for help, puts the power of the federal government behind the disaster response. The result? Anger, on top of grief, loss and devastation. soibangla (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

with four sources now explicitly stating Trump lied and spread conspiracy theories, do editors still maintain that Trump lied and spread conspiracy theories is UNDUE for inclusion? soibangla (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"By October 7, press outlets were reporting Trump had engaged in several days of spreading lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories." This part is absolutely relevant and due.

However the rules seem to be that the second part: "Public officials said this disinformation created confusion and hindered recovery efforts."; cannot be included in this form without sources that explicitly connect Trump's lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories with the lies, distortions, disinformation and conspiracy theories that public officials say are hindering recovery efforts. The connection seems pretty clear to me, but we aren't allowed to say it without a clear and unambiguous source that says so. Largely Legible Layman (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

at this point I am requesting buy-in that the edit is DUE, so we can knock that out of the way toward inclusion soibangla (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, it would probably be best for the information to be included in the recently created season conspiracy theory article, rather than in this one. It is a better fit there. Drdpw (talk) 02:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming here from ORN, I would say that the first sentence is due and should be included on this article, though I would prefer to drop the list of synonyms to just either disinformation or conspiracy theories for brevity, we're supposed to summarise. As for the second sentence, I would drop the word this from Valjean's proposal, but I don't really see any other issues myself. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

if we cannot reach a consensus with this tiny group by Friday, I intend to open an RFC to draw more participants into the discussion soibangla (talk) 02:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I recently added a section that copied over 1 paragraph from the conspiracy article for the page that was removed by Drdpw. He also removed it from the Hurricane Milton article as well. I believe it should be re-added and this edit possibly included within it. BootsED (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The conspiracy theory material belongs in the conspiracy theory article. That is what the article for. Drdpw (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Correct. However, a one-paragraph mention of the conspiracy theories is due owing to the amount of them associated with Hurricane Helene and Milton as demonstrated by the large amount of RS on the topic. The page on the conspiracy theories also specifically highlights their impact in regard to Helene and Milton. We are not repeating every single conspiracy theory on this page. BootsED (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

IV fluid shortage

I added a paragraph about the national IV fluid shortage spurred by a North Carolina manufacturing plant being damaged by flooding to the United States impact section, not the North Carolina section itself. I'm not entirely sure whether or not this is the appropriate section for it, but it seemed like a decent place to start. Thoughts? Raskuly (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that it could go in either place. I have trimmed the paragraph, cutting the secondary information concerning the letter to the president and the actions requested. Drdpw (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Could actions by health officials or mention of the letter be included in the aftermath section in some capacity, though? Raskuly (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

"according to an aide"

does not detract from the fact that a reliable source explicitly reported DeSantis was refusing to take Vice President Kamala Harris' phone calls, Anotherperson123. please do not attempt to undermine a reliable source. I know there are a good many editors who engage in that sort of thing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Helene&curid=77945659&diff=1250322705&oldid=1250316422

soibangla (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I am not attempting to undermine a reliable source, just stating what the source says. Anotherperson123 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Anotherperson123 the reliable source does not say or suggest purportedly. you do. soibangla (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I think AP123 is trying to communicate that "according to an aide" might mean that the reliable source in question was not able to independently verify the claim. Is that something you'd be amenable to workshopping wording on? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Maria?

The top post kind of beats around the bush with Maria, mentioning it as an Atlantic Hurricane and putting the mention of USA next to Katrina(which does specify Mainland only). It's technically correct, but the weird phrasing is confusing and implies Maria has nothing to do with the US, and there's a lot of plenty making that mistake as of late. 2604:3D09:1F7F:8B00:6110:B27E:C4D0:9BDE (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Article size

The article is still 8316 bytes after splitting out Georgia. However, I don’t think we should split out any more states. That being said, should we split out an article for the aftermath? 74.101.118.218 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that a lot of the political response section could be moved to Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. It takes up a lot of this article and is significantly longer that the relief section. Cowlan (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, the Florida preparations and impact sections, along with the North Carolina impact section, could be trimmed, as there are 'Effects in' articles for each state. Drdpw (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw: The effects of articles are GA/NC. FL doesn't have one. --Crete44 (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. Drdpw (talk) 13:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

HTS

Should it be mentioned that the 70 mph wind gust at HTS (during Helene) was the second highest gust at the station. Source: https://www.weather.gov/rlx/2024-September-27-Helene Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

International aid

@Homerethegreat: I wanted to let you know I removed the 'International aid' section & 'Israel' subsection. Not all verifiable information has to be included and I felt it disrupted the flow of the article, particularly since it was a very short section. Just wanted to let you know in case you had planned on expanding it. Cowlan (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)