Jump to content

Talk:Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adding an origin/spread section?

[edit]

I think an 'Origin and spread' section is important to add. A lot of RS seem to be emphasizing the scale of the misinformation, rapid online spread, and how unprecedented it is. [1] [2] [3] Several of these specifically discuss social media sites, particularly Twitter/X in being the origin of the rumors and uniquely enabling them to spread on a widespread scale. Cowlan (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that society has come to the point that this article had to be made is sad. Le Hurricane (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Wikipedia is so politically biased makes me sad.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Launchballer talk 05:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Source: "Greene, after spending years trying to distance herself from her infamous 2018 remarks on social media blaming wildfires on 'Jewish Space Lasers,' is now using this climate emergency to double down on weather conspiracies and lasers." Owen (2024)
Moved to mainspace by Dan Leonard (talk), with significant contributions by Belbury (talk), Cowlan (talk), and BootsED (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

— Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]


Scope

[edit]

I have two questions about the scope of this article:

  1. Is it exclusive to the United States?
  2. What is being counted as a conspiracy theory? I added information about disinformation about a Cuban dam collapse but it doesn't necessarily accuse the Cuban government of anything (though according to the cited article it is related to mistrust in the Cuban government).

Thanks, ✶Quxyz 20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is just politically biased against conservatives and Republicans. Bjoh249 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjoh249
  1. This is irrelevant to the topical at hand
  2. Wikipedia can only report on what reliable sources, as deemed by consensus, say.
✶Quxyz 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it’s truth. This site is very biased. Which is why no real thinking person takes you seriously. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you have a specific claim related to this article, do not post further. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. ✶Quxyz 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, nobody takes Wikipedia seriously because of bias like yours. Bjoh249 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources showing the lack of lithium and other valuable mineral deposits

[edit]

Contray to one conspiracy theory mentioned in the article, available reliable sources show the lack of lithium and other mineral resources in the area devasted by Hurricane Helene. The United States Geological Survey and North Carolina Geological Survey have published maps of mineral resources that include the area affected by Hurricane Helene. They show that area to be devoid of economically valuable lithium and other mineral resource. With links to digital files where they exist, they included:

Lemmon, R.E. and Dunn, D.E., 1973, Geologic map and mineral resources summary of the Bat Cave quadrangle, North Carolina, and mineral resource summary. Geological Map Series, 202-NE, 1:24,000. North Carolina Geological Survey.

Robinson, G.R., Lesure, F.G., Marlow, J.I., Foley, N.K., and Clark, S.H., 2004. Bedrock geology and mineral resources of the Knoxville 1 degree X 2 degree quadrangle Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2004-1075, 1:250,000.

The United States Geological Survey, North Carolina Geological Survey, and others have also published papers and fact sheets which include maps of the Tin-Spodumene Belt / spodumene pegmatite district, which show where lithium deposits are found and limited to in North Carolina. With links to digital files where they exist, they included:

Horton, J.W.; Butler, J.R. The Kings Mountain belt and spodumene pegmatite district, Cherokee and York Counties, South Carolina, and Cleveland County, North Carolina. In Centennial Field Guide; Neathery, T.L., Ed.; Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1986; Volume 6, pp. 239–244.

Kesler, T.L., 1942. The tin-spodumene belt of the Carolinas: A preliminary report. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 936-J, p. 245-269.

North Carolina Geological Survey, Lithium. Educational Fact Sheet. Paul H. (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two Discussions Concerning This Article

[edit]

There are two ongoing discussions concerning this article. You can participate in them here:

  1. Talk:Hurricane Helene#Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?
  2. Talk:Hurricane Milton#Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?

The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]