Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:59, 23 September 2013

Hurricane Sandy was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 30, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Canada Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Caribbean Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Disaster management Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New Jersey Top‑importance This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Misplaced Pages feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York (state) Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Non-tropical storms Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. North America Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Template:WikiProject Severe weather Template:WikiProject Tropical cyclones Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Delaware / District of Columbia / Massachusetts High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delaware (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject District of Columbia (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Massachusetts (assessed as Mid-importance).

The contents of the Effects of Hurricane Sandy in the United States page were merged into Hurricane Sandy on 1 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

A news item involving Hurricane Sandy was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the In the news section on 26 October 2012.

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Dan Nosowitz (2012-11-02). "Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Misplaced Pages". PopSci. Phillip Bump (2012-11-02). "Meet the man who's kept climate change off the Hurricane Sandy Misplaced Pages page". Grist (magazine). Ashley Feinberg (2012-11-03). "Most Of Your Hurricane Sandy Knowledge Is Coming From A Man Who Doesn't Believe In Global Warming". Gizmodo. "Climate change denier scrubs Sandy's Misplaced Pages page". MSN. 2012-11-03. Nick Farrell (2012-11-05). "Climate change censored on Misplaced Pages". TechEYE. Mic Wright (2012-11-07). "Misplaced Pages's Hurricane Sandy page: a storm is still raging over references to 'climate change'". The Telegraph.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Merge?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sandy wasn't even a tropical cyclone at landfall. The article just highlights how we shouldn't be building so much near the coast. Our own human error shouldn't be so highlighted, and don't even get me started about NHC botching the warnings near landfall. I think we should just merge the article, there's simply too much fluff. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree and think this article should be merged.--12george1 (talk) 16:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Merge what with what? Kafziel 16:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've condensed this article to 5 sentences. YE 16:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably merge it to Global warming? That seems to be the most apt place. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that article has been deleted because global warming is a hoax. Kafziel 16:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I smell a conspiracy then. Notice Sandy struck just before the election. Maybe Sandy should be merged to the conspiracy article, like weather control? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Get real.Jason Rees (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

If this is to be merged I also think the name should be changed, what kind of name is Sandy? The name sounds like it was WP:OR made up by a spongebob fan. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

These lists were initially created in 1978/1979. Spongebob was not a factor. It wouldn't surprise me if Grease (movie) played a role. That's pure speculation, though. Thegreatdr (talk)

I got a phone call from Chuck Norris and he approves of merging this article. Chuck has lost any thrill of having staring contests with the eye of a hurricane.--12george1 (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:SOAP and WP:DNFT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

NJ photo

The picture of damage along the NJ coast is NOT Long Beach Island, it is Mantoloking. People had corrected it numerous times, yet someone inevitably always changed it back- despite the fact that there is nothing citing it as Long Beach Island, and nothing suggesting it is LBI. I will correct it here, and on the NJ effects page. Here is a link to the Birds Eye view map of that same location for verification. The birds eye view is several years old, but the house in the center and right on beach are recognizable, as are some of the homes in the back along the bay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.217.65 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Obviously the same place. Fixed. Kafziel 13:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Sandy's Cost

Hurricanehink and Jason Rees, to make my point clearer and avoid an edit war:

Hurricanehink, you changed the estimated damage from Hurricane Sandy from ≥ $75 billion to ≥ $52 billion. But you changed it only in the infobox. The estimated-damage figures appear all over the article. If you make a change like that in the infobox, it should be made everywhere, and all the figures in the table down below and elsewhere have to be reconciled with this change. Otherwise, you're just going to confuse readers.

Jason Rees, yes, the TCR is given as a source. But the TCR as it reads from the link given is the same report the earlier estimate in the range of $75 billion was calculated from. When I say that a source should be given, it should be a new one that justifies the radical change from $75 billion to $52 billion. --Alan W (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The TCR shouldnt be used to back up the 75 Billion as it doesnt give 75 billion, it just gives the US 50B + 2B for Cuba. Some users are taking the 75 billion from the NCDC storm events database and using that as the cost but are not updating the sourcing. This is all discussed here.Jason Rees (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't scroll all the way down to change the other damage total, but IMO, the total should be $50 billion for US plus $2 billion for Cuba. The NCDC totals come from preliminary data, and aren't as reliable as the NHC total. It's similar as to what happened during Katrina, for which we used the NHC total throughout (despite some calls, including from NCDC, of up to $125 billion). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I wasn't in on editing this article from the very beginning (too involved in coping with the effects of the storm itself), so I wasn't sure where the $75 billion came from and mistakenly thought it was tallied up from the TCR. Also, I wasn't aware of the discussion on the List of costliest Atlantic hurricanes talk page. I'll go back and change the $75 billion to $52 billion, and I'll also try to change other figures given later to make them consistent, as far as I can. (The state totals will still probably not add up right; I think it should be understood that they were only early estimates, though. Maybe eventually we can make this all more accurate as we learn more.) --Alan W (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. I edited the transcluded Costliest U.S. Atlantic Hurricanes template as well. I've bumped up the total to ≥ $53 billion. Haiti, the Bahamas—well over a billion just there, so countries outside of the US and Cuba add up to a little more than just a rounding error. Even ≥ $53 billion is very conservative. --Alan W (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The damage total for the US will more than likely be revised upwards in a few years by the NHC, when they get around to releasing a new copy of The Deadliest, Costliest, and Most Intense United States Tropical Cyclones report.Jason Rees (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A very interesting report. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm sure we're not the only ones looking forward to a revision, so we can see where Sandy fits in. And yes, the figures here will no doubt need many changes in coming months. Rebuilding is only starting to get under way, and who knows how costly it will all be in the end? Everything on Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, but an article like this one especially so. --Alan W (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit about RED Cross being deleted

http://www.capemaycountyherald.com/article/crime/court+house/91711-red+cross+volunteer+arrested+charged+theft That is the citation that I added. My edit was deleted as a possible BLP problem. I removed the person's name and revised it. It was deleted again and i would like for it to stay. I experienced seeing the Red Cross soliciting for donations on the backs of the disaster. Yes, they did give out blankets and money, meals, help..aid, to evacuated people. After the storm flooded the area, I called them to see if there were any more clean blankets available because I saw them on that concert to raise money., (the blankets)---my own blanket was very dirty since most of my home was underwater and I had no way to wash it because my washer was destroyed as well. I was told by the Red Cross (South Shore Chapter), that they were not able to help anyone. I was told that they were "only giving referrals".
The edit that i am trying to add is a mention and a link to a newspaper article that mentions that this chapter of the Red Cross-(the one in the disaster area), noticed that $75,000 was missing and they had a volunteer arrested for taking the money.
Since I revised my edit to take out the volunteer's name, I think that my edit should be allowed. I did not link to any personal blogs of people who reported not being able to receive any help from the Red Cross, I cited a newspaper. There are also other newspapers and media that reported the theft. Unless someone here gives me a good reason why that edit should not be included, I will be putting it back.(leaving out the accused volunteer's name because the important part is that the Red Cross lost money that was donated to help disaster victims).
TeeVeeed (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this alleged theft is relevant enough to an article about the hurricane to merit mention in the article. I agree with the other editors that have removed it that this does not warrant inclusion. VQuakr (talk) 08:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Not only is it non-notable, but it seems from Housewife's comments that this is some sort of personal vendetta against the Red Cross. Hot Stop 02:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed that the edit should not be allowed. Thefts from the Red Cross, especially from within, are deplorable; even contemplating the accusation of such a theft is disturbing; but that doesn't justify the inclusion of this material in this particular article, which is supposed to focus on the preparation for Hurricane Sandy, its origin and effects, classification, cleanup efforts in a general way, etc. Alleged malfeasance within a charitable agency is definitely getting way too far off-topic, whether there is an underlying personal vendetta or not. --Alan W (talk) 15:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I thought that personal experience was called, "original research"-not "personal vendetta"-ha ha. Yes, the theft information applies specifically, and exactly where I edited it into the article, because it was balancing the reports of $$ being raised, and "general" overall reports of Rec Cross assistance. No I was not trying to edit in my original research, or opinion, but trying to provide balance to the article-especially for those of us who had direct experience with the event and we know what we know. A reference to a news article reporting a Red Cross volunteer who was charged with stealing money meant for disaster survivors certainly is not a "personal vendetta". And especially since if I recall, I edited-out the accused's name to avoid BLP-problemos.TeeVeeed (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Global warming section

The section on attribution to global warming is dreadful IMHO. It quotes a lot of scientists who have various ideas on how it might be related, but gives half of one sentence (Trenberth) to the null hypothesis that it isn't related at all. But my impression from most of what I've read is that the latter is actually the consensus view, and further that hurricane stats don't show (yet) any visible global warming signal at all. One source for that is the IPCC AR4 report. One of various published papers by Pielke Jr. would be good, and/or statements by Richard Muller just everywhere (just saw this one http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-van-diggelen/why-is-former-climate-ske_b_2278509.html "Muller: None of the above. Hurricane Sandy was a freak storm that happened because a relatively small hurricane (it wasn't even a category 1 storm when it hit New York City) veered towards the coast during a very high tide. None of the causes of the damage can be attributed in a scientific manner to climate change."). There are as always lots of conflicting studies and stuff, but I really think that the article should start with the consensus. MikeR613 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Muller is incorrect though. Sandy was the largest hurricane on record. I agree the section could use some tweaking, but there have been studies that have shown hurricanes have been affected by GW. Here is an article from last week that cites the United States Department of Energy saying that global warming made Sandy worse. I don't think there should be too much info on the null hypothesis, but I do think there should be less quotes and ideally only one paragraph of info. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Goodness - Sandy was far from the largest hurricane; it wasn't that big at all. It was the one that happened to hit the East Coast and especially NYC. Katrina was the one that happened to knock out a badly built levy in a major city. There were much bigger hurricanes before them and since. The consensus seems to be that there has been a considerable increase in hurricane (and tornado) damage in recent years - but that that can be so far completely explained by the fact that we have a lot more development in harm's way than in the past.

Again, I know that there are scientists who think there is a link. However, I think that the IPCC outranks them, and there are probably more scientists who disagree. Quoting this article or that doesn't change that. Anyone who thinks that the IPCC should be the major voice in global warming issues - and that it is anti-science for skeptics to rely only on the minority of scientists who disagree with them - has no business trying to ignore their input on this one. MikeR613 (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I think the concepts of "big" and "intense" are being mixed up here. "Big" is generally associated with the gale diameter/radius of tropical cyclones whereas "intense" is associated with their wind speeds. Sandy was an enormous hurricane that covered an area approximately 1,000 miles wide; however, it was not particularly intense as winds at landfall were roughly 80 mph (with a sub-950mb pressure). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think it makes Muller wrong, though.MikeR613 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This article (from NOAA, 2013) http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes might be a good choice for (what I think is) the consensus point of view: Global warming will probably cause bigger hurricanes eventually, but we can't see it yet. And a presentation from R. Pielke, Jr. yesterday to a Senate committee, on global warming and natural disasters. It itself contains more references. http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=a6df9665-e8c8-4b0f-a550-07669df48b15, including extensive quotes of IPCC SREX 2012 (IPCC, 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (Eds.) Cambridge University Press.) MikeR613 (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Not hearing objection, I'm adding a suggested section adding these links. I'm not taking away any of the text that's there, though maybe it should be consolidated. I'm not too familiar with the new editing setup.MikeR613 (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

IPCC SREX

Thanks to the one who added the quote from IPCC SREX. I've added a couple more, because I think the article is misleading otherwise. One needs to be able to tell that Trenberth is arguing with the SREX when he gives his "steroids" analogy: according to the SREX, the steroids have not (visibly) kicked in yet.MikeR613 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I am reverting that addition, for the following reasons; (1) those are generalized comments that are not specifically made in the context of discussion about Sandy (whereas the quotes from Hoerling and Trenberth were in remarks about Sandy); (2) you have cherrypicked certain comments and excluded other SREX statements among them that storm surges are already worse due to sea level rise, and that intensity of rain fall and wind speed in tropical cyclones will likely go up; (3) if you want to talk about normalized losses, we have to talk about Munich Re's report that finds the opposite and we can do that at the tropical cyclone page or the climate change controversy page, but this page is about Sandy; and (4) any talk about normalized losses needs to account for the development and enforcement of building codes. For example, assume for the sake of argument that storm frequency and intensity has been identical each year since 1900. On the one hand there is increased development, so common sense would expect increased normalized losses. On the other hand, what has been built has been built a lot better (by studying past building/infrastructure failure in the face of storms and tweaking building codes accordingly). So improved building codes would expect losses to go down. Which factor is the predominate factor? Without adequate RSs that address this, it seems like this is a rabbit hole rife with POV. I'm not an expert in the RSs on these points, and if someone thinks they have been adequately covered, I have an open mind to consider proposed text with citations. But we ain't there yet, so I am reverting. Also, if anyone does propose such text, if it is not in the context of Sandy, then some article would be the place to consider adding it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you are making good points. I am still concerned; Trenberth's comments may have been about Sandy, but they are all general points about hurricanes and tropical storms that disagree with the SREX quotes. I am not sure what to do with that unless someone can come up with equivalent quotes to the SREX that deal specifically with Sandy - but I don't know if that justifies being misleading on this page. Is it original research to note that if the IPCC thinks that you can't find a signal on hurricane damages, then you presumably can't find a signal on Sandy's damage either?

As for the point that I'm cherry-picking, my original edit did indeed point out that all these experts agree that the intensity, maybe frequency, and damages will likely go up in the future.

In summary, your points are good, but the article is misleading. There ought to be a way to mention that the entire section is probably a minority opinion, not only on attributing this particular hurricane, but on the claim that we see more and bigger storms now. MikeR613 (talk) 16:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"Is it original research to note that if the IPCC thinks that you can't find a signal on hurricane damages, then you presumably can't find a signal on Sandy's damage either?" Yes, this is explicitly covered in wikipedia's policy on synthesis. You're inferring a conclusion from combining sources in a way not done in the sources themselves. This is disallowed on wikipedia. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sailbystars, I agree with you, but the conclusion can't be that therefore we should mislead the reader. Rather, we should state exactly what the IPCC SREX says about the general topic and let the reader draw his own conclusions. It is obviously relevant. MikeR613 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

If I remember right, most of the $$$ losses in Sandy were due to storm surge, which even your addition, the SREX report says are already worse due to sea level rise. That ain't no "minority opinion", as your RS attests. In addition, what you quoted from your source was about normalized economic losses, which is something different than trends in area extent, or wind intensity, or amount and rate of rainfall, or storm surge, or lightning strikes. For more background, see this excellent UCAR faq. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

NewsAndEventsGuy, if the storm surge is a point of agreement, we should single it out explicitly. It seems that the other issues are very controversial, and (sorry to belabor the point) should not be glossed over. I've provided quotes from three scientists in the field (Muller, Pielke, Knutson, along with SREX which is clearly relevant), all from reputable sources; it seems to me to be a wrong choice to skip all that and jump right in with the scientists who have various theories all in the other direction. We are not doing our jobs. MikeR613 (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

"There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity (i.e., intensity, frequency, duration), after accounting for past changes in observing capabilities. It is likely that there has been a poleward shift in the main Northern and Southern Hemisphere extratropical storm tracks. There is low confidence in observed trends in small spatial-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems." As you requested, a more explicit quote from SREX concerning activity and intensity, rather than just economic losses. MikeR613 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

delete all ref to SREX in article (But include it at Tropical cyclone as part of a broader discussion). The reason it should be removed from this article is because Sandy struck in October 2012 whereas SREX only talks about the sci lit up through May 2011, almost a year and a half earlier. According to IPCC,

"In order to be included in the SREX, sources had to be published by 31 May 2011, to allow time for assessment. In some instances this means that the most recent events could not be included because they had not been studied and published upon prior to the literature cut-off date."

Bear in mind that the publication and peer review process is slow. To get into SREX you had to collect your data, analyze it, draft your paper, submit it, wait for reviewers, revise it, resubmit it.... and have it actually published by May 31 2011! Obviously the papers underlying SREX analyzed events much older than Sandy, and trends that had cutoff dates well before the storm.

To me, this is a solid reason to delete SREX from the Sandy article.

As a bigger issue, Mike, it seems like you are hot to include this here to counter what you see as "misleading" claims in this section. To persuade me that this well referenced section, using Sandy-related RSs, is "misleading" you will need to provide Sandy related RSs, or alternatively broad literature reviews where the underlying literature came later, so as to include looks at Sandy. Pre Sandy references based on even older events are a poor way to try to correct what you claim is "misleading" language in this section. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I won't push; you obviously know more about it than I do. But I would have thought that an IPCC report should be, if not definitive, at least not ignorable - until the next one comes out. In any case the NOAA (Knutson) report was from 2013.

I hasten to note that I don't think the claims in the section are "misleading". They are perfectly good sources from experts in the field. What is misleading IMO is skipping sources from those who disagree, including the IPCC. MikeR613 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wondering, could anyone give more details on footnote 5? I'd love to see the chart that's supposed to be there! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.117.189 (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

"Superstorm Sandy" in first sentence as alternate title?

It's now approaching the one year anniversary of the storm. Before we get there, I think we should settle whether or not to include the name "Superstorm Sandy" in the first sentence. "Superstorm Sandy" gets a hefty 3.7 million Google hits (compared to 15 million for "Hurricane Sandy". I believe the article does a disservice by not including the alternate name. Just six days ago, FEMA called it "Superstorm Sandy", the National Weather Service called it as such, and it continues to be a regular name in the news (see CNN). At this point, it's become a perfectly valid alternative name to the event, and it should be treated as such in the first sentence as:

Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy) was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season

--♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the support it's gained over the past few months, I agree with using the alternative name in the first sentence. Of course, I always have. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 03:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I still don't understand why we don't just rename the article as Superstorm Sandy per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LASTING. See also: 1947 Fort Lauderdale hurricane also known as Hurricane George. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Per commonname, "Hurricane Sandy" is more popular, but Superstorm Sandy is a strong second. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay then, well I agree that it should be placed in the lead as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Just a small addition but I think you should link Superstorm as not everyone knows the term. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I too would support putting the alternate name in the opening sentence. It seems to be used often enough. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• 3.7 million unique hits? 3.7 million reliable, respectable, scientific hits? Nope, just random Google crap. I think Knowledgekid87's post is very telling: He thinks we should link to "superstorm", since not everyone knows the term. Not everyone knows the term because there's no such thing. Linking wouldn't help, because "superstorm" doesn't have an article. Because there's no such thing. It's a disambiguation page, which offers readers a link to "super storm" which is really just a link to storm. And that's the problem with putting this stupid crap in the lede: People start to believe it's actually a real thing. There is no such thing as a superstorm, and it's not our job to list every ridiculous made-up nickname given to everything that has an article, no matter how many times it's repeated. If we really have to do this again, I hope you won't mind too much if I just copy and paste answers from last year, since literally every possible argument has already been covered and nothing has changed. Aspire to be better than Britannica, people. Kafziel 04:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • You have long been against the Superstorm label, and I was waiting for your reply. You say "there's no such thing", but what does that matter if it's a very common name? The name "Superstorm Sandy" is very much a name for the event that occurred last October. What has changed is the legacy of the event, and how the alternate name is still very viable. As an encyclopedia, we should indicate what people call it, such as FEMA, the NWS, and CNN, to name a few. You have yet to provide a reason not to include in the first sentence that convinces me not to, and calling it "stupid crap in the lede" isn't helpful. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
    • You ask why it matters that there's no such thing as a superstorm (which my spell checker just flagged as an incorrect word!). It matters because this is a serious encyclopaedia, not a venue for spreading made up words. Stick to the proper name. It never helps having two separate names for the one event, and we shouldn't encourage it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna let you say stuff like this without a response. You think that because Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia, we can't have an alternate title? We have articles like Hurricane Bawbag (which also includes the official name), and February 2013 nor'easter (which, le gasp, includes two alternate names!). Two weather articles in the past few years that include unofficial names in the first sentence. Misplaced Pages very much should encourage giving two separate names for one event - WP:TITLE says "Since no two articles can have the same title, it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description in parentheses after the name." Furthermore, no one on Wiki made up the term "superstorm". It's included in reputable websites as a valid alternate name. Are you worried that Lady Gaga's article isn't at her proper name of Stefani Germanotta? And what about how Mercury (element) includes alternate, but unofficial names in the top of the lede? HiLo48, your argument doesn't make when you look at other articles on Misplaced Pages, and I really don't understand why you are so stonewalled over this. It is simply including a popular alternate name, an idea that is allowed on Misplaced Pages. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Yes, we do think that. We thought it last year, and you know that, because we’ve been over all of this before. I know you don’t agree, but if you don’t have anything new to add, besides another rehashing of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I don’t see what we’re talking about. We were willing to compromise last year, and now it’s looking like the old “give ‘em an inch and they’ll take a mile” thing I expected to see, and right on schedule for the anniversary, as predicted. This time next year you’ll be wanting to rename the whole article. Kafziel 14:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Misplaced Pages is a serious encyclopedia because we're well-rounded and show different viewpoints. I wholly disagree with renaming this article, as "Hurricane Sandy" is the more popular title. As for what's new, as I said before, we're further removed from the event, and time has shown "Superstorm Sandy" as a valid alternative. I don't see why this is controversial. It's a name used by FEMA, NWS, CNN, etc. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
            • You haven't shown us anything to suggest it's a more valid alternative than it was last year. Kafziel 15:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
              • Several sources I provided are from a few days ago, from very reputable sources. It shows it's a lasting alternative name. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                • I don't think they are reputable (at least, not for this purpose). And I don't think a year (considerably less than a year, as a matter of fact) is any indication of longevity. People had plenty of sources last year, and we didn't care then either. We're not saying nobody ever used it; we're saying it's meaningless and shouldn't be used here. It's no different than any of the other nicknames given to it, which at another time almost everyone—including Knolwedgekid and TornadoLGS—agreed "SHOULD NOT be in the lede" (not my emphasis). Aside from the fact that the word is unscientific and undefined, it also gives undue weight to a fringe theory that this was some kind of new weather, and implicit support of political issues regarding climate change. It's not just a nickname, it's a political coat rack. I'm pretty sure you're well aware of that, or you wouldn't still be pushing for it all this time later. Kafziel 16:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Wait a minute, you think FEMA and the NWS aren't reputable in this case? They are both products of the United States federal government! I'm sorry, but if you don't think they provide clarity that the name isn't meaningless, then I don't think I'd ever be able to convince you otherwise then. Does anyone else have any thoughts on this? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                  • Please read WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE, you are basing your argument on a discussion that is many months old. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
                    • Wait a minute, you think FEMA is in charge of naming storms? I'm pretty sure you actually don't think that at all. And, from the NWS site you linked:

                      The information on National Weather Service (NWS) Web pages are in the public domain, unless specifically noted otherwise, and may be used without charge for any lawful purpose so long as you do not: 1) claim it is your own (e.g., by claiming copyright for NWS information -- see below), 2) use it in a manner that implies an endorsement or affiliation with NOAA/NWS, or 3) modify its content and then present it as official government material.

                      The contents of that website do not constitute NWS policy. It is a glorified blog, not a reliable source for what your purpose. Given your focus of work at Misplaced Pages, not to mention the fact that you are an administrator, I can't believe I have to explain all this to you. Kafziel 17:47, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I never said FEMA was in charge of naming storms. That is delegated to the National Hurricane Center. But when it comes to alternate names (and I cannot emphasize enough that I'm talking only about an alternate name, not about changing the name of the whole article), they are certainly a reputable source, as are the NWS (I can't believe you would call them a glorified blog, considering the reports are written by experts). You are saying that the name "Superstorm" is meaningless, but the fact it is widely used by the NWS has to mean something. But if that isn't enough, then I have more. NOAA here has the name "Superstorm" in big bold font. The President of the United States even calls it "Superstorm Sandy" in his State of the Union. How can you keep arguing it is a junk term that doesn't belong in the first sentence? It is ludicrous. And for what it's worth, given your last sentence, you might value my opinion a bit, considering I have been an editor for eight years and an administrator for five. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've been an editor for eight years and an admin for six. I don't see what that has to do with anything. I'm here to talk about science and weather, not measure dicks. I'd say I've given as much respect to your opinions as you've given mine.

I'll tell you what, though: You show me any peer-reviewed scientific journal (take your pick) that specifically defines what a superstorm is, and I'm out. Seriously, that's all you have to do. Swear to god. Kafziel 19:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I realize that these don't specifically define what a superstorm is, but these two articles in Weather as published by the Royal Meteorological Society might be relevant.Jason Rees (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed compromise I suggest inserting something like this (plus a cite or two) between the first and second sentences of existing lead text

"Populsar media dubbed it 'Superstorm Sandy' and that nickname became sufficiently popular that even the USA's FEMA used it."

Such an approach acknowledges RSs that use the nickname, but explicitly says its just a popular alternate, not science terminology.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I am adding to my italicized proposal above (after several said 'support' below) so it ends... "even the USA's FEMA and NOAA have used it."

FEMA used it days after the event, and 6 months after, and even 12 months after.

At least one of NOAAs uses is here

I agree the text should refer to it as a "nickname" which should satisfy the comprise-capable techjargon purists among us. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No. FEMA didn't use it. People use words, not organisations. Perhaps one person at FEMA was caught up in the hype. That doesn't make superstorm an acceptable and meaningful word. Without a proper definition, we shouldn't use it. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes FEMA has used it - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. I am having trouble trying understanding why some of you guys have such a problem with this. FEMA and NWS are about as reliable and reputable as it gets when we are talking about weather events, including tropical cyclones. Also, does the term "superstorm" really have to be defined? There is a disambiguation about the term superstorm, FYI.--12george1 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support the addition of "Hurricane Sandy (unofficially known as Superstorm Sandy) was the deadliest and most destructive hurricane of the 2012 Atlantic hurricane season" per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:LASTING, I do not see any policy based arguments here for it's exclusion other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT comments, like it or not the wording "Superstorm Sandy" is used in a lot of reliable sources and we are not even talking about a title change here (jeez...). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

support I fail to see any distinction between the use of "Superstorm Sandy" and other nicknames for storms such as the "Long Island Express" and "Yankee Clipper" for the 1938 New England hurricane or "Snowmageddon" for the February 5–6, 2010 North American blizzard. "Superstorm Sandy" is clearly not an appropriate title for the article, but I see no reason in policy nor precedent for excluding it as a bolded nickname. Sailsbystars (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. Hype or not, and technical term or not this nickname is widely used and continues to be used. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support per my above comment and the statements of others. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

If the populists here want to move away from quality writing and mention superstorm, please at least qualify it as not a real meteorological word with any defined meaning. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The italicized proposal above attempted to do that with the word "dubbed" and "nickname". Are you saying that effort was insufficient and if so are you proposing a tweak to the wording? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

So if the term is never properly defined in a weather journal, you're not going to drop this? The Bureau of American Meteorological Society gives the name "Superstorm Sandy", but in a way that reflects it's not an official name... exactly what I'm proposing for the article. The exact quote is

"Hurricane Sandy — more commonly referred to in the media as “Superstorm” Sandy"

It's plain as day that it's a well-known term. As for a definition, I'm not sure how likely that'll be, since it's a description more than anything. An article in Oceanography from March 2013 says "Sandy converged with an extra-tropical cyclone, a developing early “winter” nor’easter, that transformed it from a weakening late-October hurricane/tropical storm into an extra-tropical hybrid superstorm. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it sounds like a proper meteorological term with some sort of formal meaning. It's not, and we must make it clear that it's not. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Hurricanehink. Superstorm Sandy is a common enough name that it should be listed as an alternate in the first sentence. Whether or not it is an "official" name is irrelevant, otherwise we would never have to have discussions about alternate (a.k.a. unofficial) names. To argue that point is analogous to arguing that common nicknames for people should also not be included. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Not the same thing. Everyone knows that people have their formal, given names, and often nicknames as well. And they know that the nicknames cannot be used in formal situations. I am, however, sadly convinced that some people, even some contributing to this thread, think that superstorm has begun to have some official, formal meaning. It hasn't. And we must make that 100% clear. HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I've heard meteorologists use it in private and in public. I would think that adding the caveat "unofficially nicknamed 'Superstorm Sandy'" would be appropriate. I don't know where you're getting the idea that people are arguing that "Superstorm Sandy" is an official, formal name. I haven't made that argument. I'm not understanding what the harm is in adding an unofficial nickname, and noting it as such. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it could be there, with "unofficial nickname" as the qualifier. It still irks an awful lot. We must remember that the only reason it exists is the same reason headline writers use awful puns. It was obvious alliteration. Nothing more. And we generally don't repeat the headline writers' awful puns in Misplaced Pages. HiLo48 (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the harm is that you're not the only one reading this article, Inks. Not everyone does understand the distinction. You only have to look to the top of this very discussion to see an editor suggesting that the entire article be moved to "Superstorm Sandy". Despite that for the last year it has specifically said that the media made up that nickname, he still thinks that’s the most appropriate name. If a somewhat experienced editor is that ignorant, how much more so all the schoolchildren who will be using this as a reference tool? Not all of those people will give you the opportunity to correct them, as was done in this case. Is it really better to err on the side of pop culture? To what end?

That's what I feel we stand to lose. Can you tell me what is gained by having it in bold face? The old argument a year ago was that it would let people know they're at the right article; the compromise was, okay, if it's really that confusing, we'll have it in the lede section. So, has there been a rash of complaints from confused readers since then? Are we afraid of offending the hurricane by not including her nickname? What is the reason? Who is served by adding it? Kafziel 22:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you cease with the personal attacks please? Having the name in the lead harms nobody and as I have said before there are no policies to exclude it, but there are policies that support including it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

There are no personal attacks here. Did you not propose moving the page? Were you not corrected? Do you not think there are countless other people out there less knowledgeable than you? These are facts, not attacks. Kafziel 22:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling out an editor who you think is ignorant just to prove something I see as in bad faith and a personal attack towards me, I had no idea what name was used more in sources but have been hearing the name Superstorm thrown out a lot, notice I did not try to continue with my effort for a title change and just left it as that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

You called yourself out, man. I didn't even use your name. As you say, you "had no idea" - and that is the exact definition of ignorance. I used it as a fact, not as an insult. My point is that lots and lots of other people also have no idea, and they are looking to us to make it clear. Putting the wrong name in bold face, in the first sentence, is not a step in the right direction. Kafziel 22:56, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, let's not get into a mass edit war over this all of a sudden. I've restored the page to its original pre-discussion form that does not include Superstorm Sandy in the first sentence and does not bold "Superstorm Sandy" in the lead. Let's keep it that way until this discussion is over. There's no point making changes back and forth every time someone thinks his side is "winning". Inks.LWC (talk) 21:16, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• I'd just like to drop by with my suggested wording. At this point I think it should be in the first sentence, due to its widespread usage. However, in order to tackle the issue of it being 'not scientifically accurate' (which, despite this, government organizations continue to use 'Superstorm Sandy', though to give credit where credit is due they do make note that it is not an entirely new subset of storms), I'd like to suggest "Hurricane Sandy (also unofficially referred to as Superstorm Sandy)..." as the first sentence of the article. This is consistent with the bolding of Winter Storm Nemo in February 2013 nor'easter. I decided to use 'also unofficially referred to as' instead of 'also known as' because Sandy is not, by definition, a superstorm. Because there is no finite definition for a superstorm and it's completely arbitrary to the individual whether it was a superstorm or not. Instead, 'referred to as' indicates that it is called as such, but it's not necessarily the 'scientifically accurate' naming. TheAustinMan 23:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
  • That's what I've supported to all along. I agree with that. Saying "unofficial" should give us leeway. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Canada-related articles
• Low-importance Canada-related articles
• All WikiProject Canada pages
• C-Class Caribbean articles
• Mid-importance Caribbean articles
• WikiProject Caribbean articles
• C-Class Disaster management articles
• Top-importance Disaster management articles
• C-Class New Jersey articles
• Top-importance New Jersey articles
• WikiProject New Jersey articles
• C-Class New York (state) articles
• Mid-importance New York (state) articles
• C-Class New York City articles
• High-importance New York City articles
• WikiProject New York City articles
• C-Class North America articles
• Top-importance North America articles
• WikiProject North America articles
• C-Class United States articles
• High-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of High-importance
• C-Class Delaware articles
• High-importance Delaware articles
• WikiProject Delaware articles
• C-Class District of Columbia articles
• High-importance District of Columbia articles
• WikiProject District of Columbia articles
• C-Class Massachusetts articles
• Mid-importance Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject Massachusetts articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages In the news articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics