Talk:Hurricane Helene/Archive 1

Archive 1

More faster edits on Helene's catorgory.

I think we should get info from the National Hurricane Center or National Weather Service, or even the NOAA! And this is coming from a person in Florida. AmazedCheezBalls (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We do. Citations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 45 are directly from the NHC. Advisories from the National Weather Service are of lesser use, as they are for immediately preserving life and property, and from NOAA is typically more retrospective and not timely, so the four or so daily NHC bulletins are as rapid as information can be reasonably added. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, ok. So should I remove this? AmazedCheezBalls (talk) 02:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This discussion? Better to leave it up and just have it be marked as  Already done or so. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please add sources for all reported deaths

There are nine deaths listed on here, only five of them have sources attached to them. Please add sources when you update the death toll. NesserWiki (talk) 07:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Move to Hurricane Helene?

Is this the time that we give this the primary article? Or do we wait to see the impacts done? CrazyC83 (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

If an RM was called, I doubt it would pass because of the 1958 storm. ✶Quxyz✶ 20:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to that. Hurricane Helene (1958) was, as of this message, stronger, costlier, and deadlier than the 2024 version. So absolutely not. Like mentioned above, if an RM is called, it would be strong opposed probably due to the 1958 storm. Even if this caused major damage, it would be opposed as the 1958 storm caused equivalent to 119 million in damage in today's money. There would be no clear primary topic, as both are there. For "Helene", the article "Hurricane Helene" should be the list of storms, unless the 2024 storm is retired. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  If damage totals come out pretty high (say 10 billion) which is a possibility if you account for the possible damage it could do farther inland in states like Georgia, then we can talk. But PRIMARYTOPIC might come into play here if everyone else begins associating Helene to the 2024 storm instead of 1958. We’ll see how things go. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wait for now, but likely strong support Hold off on a move discussion for now. We can't compare the 2024 storm to others because the effects of the 2024 storm are still a question mark. There's certainly reason to believe it will become the most significant Helene: the storm itself is massive, some forecasters predict it will further intensify to Category 4 (which would make the storm join the very small list of storms to strike the US at that intensity), the risk of major flooding means it is likely to have significant effects on many states in the Southeast (not just Florida), etc. It's very easy to imagine that it's going to cause more than Helene's one (indirect) fatality and $11.4M ($119M in today's money). I find using money as a representation of damage to be misleading because generally storms that hit the US cause exponentially more "damage" when it is the poorer countries that are actually more damaged, but nevertheless, this should be an effortless bar for Helene to clear. As a side note, we do not to convert previous figures to today's money when comparing these stats: we consider Harvey to be tied with Katrina for costliest hurricane, even though Katrina stays #1 when adjusted for inflation.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:57, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  The magnitude of its impacts are not guaranteed. Idalia last year was about the same intensity but was not retired and did no fatalities were caused. ✶Quxyz✶ 22:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  As I said, we should wait until after impacts occur to !vote on moving. But I just want to point out that's an odd example to use. Idalia did cause fatalities, and billions in damages. A name does not need to be retired for the name to lack a year, it just needs to be the most important one. We should wait for the impacts to be known, but we will not wait until the WMO meets next year to discuss retirement.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wait for now; but likely strong support – wait till landfall Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Wait for now. The impacts should be known, but I will not support unless the magnitude of its impacts are severe enough to warrant a merge. _ZZ^Z'S 23:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  And let’s be clear @Zzzs; I don’t think they’re asking for a “merge”; they’re asking for a “move”, which is a fundamental difference. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for noticing. It was a typo by the way; I was aware that it's a merge. _ZZ^Z'S 05:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  You did it again. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:55, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Rescinding my “wait” !vote. Changing to strong support; it is clear this will be worse than the 1958 storm. But I would like someone to specifically mention the 1958 storm in a hatnote. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 05:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  Idalia was smaller and less intense at landfall; Helene is also forecast to have extensive inland impacts. So, Idalia is not a fair comparison at all to use, on top of what VanillaWizard stated. ArkHyena (talk) 01:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  This is probably bigger than Ian when it comes to the size (wind radius) of the storm. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 03:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• You're right about the primary topic rule. I didn't nominate an RM yet because an initial discussion was needed and Idalia was a counter-point. Retirement automatically makes a primary topic, but that won't happen (if warranted) until next spring. CrazyC83 (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Still think we should wait till landfall; maybe wait until Friday until we know the scale of the impacts. Code red on the Waffle House Index (see below) doesn’t necessarily make it the primary topic. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

  I will add that most people probably will associate the name Hurricane Helene with the 2024 storm. I didn’t even know there was a hurricane with the same name until @WeatherWriter and @MarioProtIV mentioned that. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Wait until impacts become known, but likely strong support. This is very likely to be a very damaging and potentially deadly storm, on top of being notable when considering its intensity at the forecasted landfall location at time of writing. Changing to strong support, as it is rapidly becoming clear that this Helene's impacts are of far greater magnitude than Hurricane Helene (1958). ArkHyena (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support. To my knowledge the impacts are already greater. 6 confirmed fatalities the most by a storm of this name, damages will almost certainly come in higher than any of the others as well (every other storm named Helene is in the low 10s of millions), and while we can't know this for sure, I'd imagine when people search for "Hurricane Helene" going forward they're looking for this one. Personally I think we should move this sooner rather than later. DarkSide830 (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Support per nom. †TyphoonAmpil† (💬 - 📝 - 🌀 - 🏮) 05:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support It's deadlier and possibly even costlier than any other storms named Helene. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 06:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I would like to add that Helene is also causing widespread catastrophic flooding in the inland Carolinas. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 13:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support once the final damage total comes in. Since 1958, people build closer to the coastlines, and as we saw with Francine and Beryl earlier this year, even storms under category 3 making landfall can still cause billions in damage (for reference, the 1958 Helene only caused 125 million when adjusted for inflation, whereas 2024 Helene is almost certain to cause at least 1 billion, literally 8 times as much). Not to mention the higher death toll, actually making landfall, being in the news, you know the deal. I'd say a good analogue for 1958 Helene would be Hurricane Lee (2023) which caused a similar amount of damage, killed more than 1958 Helene, and wasn't retired, still having the 2023 on its name, and if a category 4 Lee made landfall in 2029 it would easily be the primary topic. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

And plus, most people ain’t going to remember the 1958 hurricane; unless of course they’re at least, maybe 75 to 80 years old. But there should still be a hatnote for the 1958 storm. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support once final totals are in. Damage costs appear to be much higher even when adjusted for inflation, and fatalities appear to be higher as well. In addition, I agree with the reply to the above remark about the 1958 storm being less well known today since it's been 65+ years. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Even with the absolutely underestimated preliminary damage toll of $6-8 billion, this year's Helene caused far more that 1958's Helene, adjusted for inflation. Tavantius (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Now I support - this is far worse than any of those other Helenes, and the name is almost certainly getting retired now. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per previous replies CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Changing to Support It definitely meets the criteria for notability. --_ZZ^Z'S 20:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: I have formally initiated an RM below. ArkHyena (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 27 September 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) - FlightTime (open channel) 23:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

---

Hurricane Helene (2024) → Hurricane Helene – WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is becoming rapidly applicable to this storm. Of storms named Helene, only Hurricane Helene (1958) caused significant land impacts of 1 indirect fatality and 11 million in damages in 1958 USD (~110 million converted). By comparison, this iteration of Helene has already caused >40 deaths, and this toll is unfortunately very likely to rise significantly as cleanup crews recover bodies and dangerous impacts continue throughout the Southeastern U.S. Additionally, although no formal damage estimates have yet to be conducted, it is reasonable to assume that this storm will far surpass the 1958 system, given the former made landfall at peak intensity and is currently inflicting very extensive inland impacts whilst the latter dealt only a grazing blow to the Carolinas. Finally, it is also reasonable to assume that when people are searching for "Hurricane Helene", they mean this Helene and not an obscure storm from over 50 years ago. For these reasons, I believe this article should be moved as soon as possible. ArkHyena (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support and if possible, snow close. Seeing as there was a previous discussion with an overwhelming decision to move it due to its historic impacts, I don't see why this needs to wait for seven days prior to being moved. Tavantius (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support Not winter yet, but I still support the SNOW clause. This probably could've been BOLDly moved. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong support. Yes there was the one in 1958, but this one is causing much more severe damage and the name is almost certainly going to be retired. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support This is overdue. It is likely it will be retired. Felicia (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support once final totals are in. Damage costs appear to be much higher even when adjusted for inflation, and fatalities appear to be higher as well. In addition, I agree with the reply to the above remark about the 1958 storm being less well known today since it's been 65+ years. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support per rationale of the nominator and the clear consensus of the previous discussion on this page regarding the same proposal, as well as the above comments on this thread. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support, mainly for reasons presented by ArkHyena. I really do think that this one was far more significant and deadly than 1958's (because of the death toll, and although damage totals aren't in yet, I imagine that it'll be higher than Helene in 1958 because of its associated impacts across the Southeast, Southern Applachia, and Tennessee/Ohio Valleys). The impacts in those three regions probably already make this one as the primary topic, and yet they are still continuing (I'm experiencing some of it at the moment too), so I'm afraid we may see, at the least, further damage reports come in and only make this one more clearly significant than the 1958 Helene. ~ Tails Wx 21:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - per above and mainly per the nomination 96.236.149.251 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Speedy move per nomination and the emerging serious impact from the storm. --Minoa (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Support - This is absolutely a primary topic now and easily the most significant Helene we've had. Almost certain that this system will be retired come 2025. VantaWiki (talk) 21:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

• Strong support and recommend a WP:SNOW close. Absolutely horrific impacts, no other storm with the same name can even be compared to it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong Support I believe this storm has had just as much coverage as Beryl (possibly more), and this storm is also worse than Idalia and Debby combined in terms of deaths (likely also damages too). I have heard that this storm has been super devastating, and as others above have stated, I agree. 1958's Helene was not retired, 2024's Helene will most definitely be retired and has also been far deadlier than the 1958 storm. Helene, along with Beryl, will very likely be retired after 2024.VehicleandWeatherEnthusiast2022 (talk) 22:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Neutral Claims that the name Helene will be retired or is almost certain are CRYSTAL without at least an indication that it is under consideration. Same applies to damage amounts not sourced. That said, it appears to be the most deadly storm named Helene by a significant amount and might be acceptable to move on that alone. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

 Done SNOW Requested move - FlightTime (open channel) 22:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Can we close the discussion now? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 22:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Landfall date

The hurricane made landfall around 11:30 p.m. eastern time on September 26 but is variously stated to be on September 27 across the article. Should the UTC times be changed or put next to EDT times, and should the infobox picture say the hurricane made landfall on September 26 (with the UTC time de-emphasized)? GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I support the motion of making all progression times EDT, as that is the time zone that the hurricane stayed for the majority/all of its lifetime, along with landfall. Would like more input on this decision. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

We always use UTC for tropical cyclones and other meteorological events. It's a standard practice across the project at this point due to the number of timezones. Noah, BSBA^Talk 16:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am supportive of keeping UTC for consistency. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Add A Fact: "Millions without power in Southeast US"

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

nearly 4.5 million customers were without power in Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia

The fact comes from the following source:

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/09/27/weather/hurricane-helene-florida

Additional comments from user: Testing out this Wikipedia extension. Forgive me if this is annoying.

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Benplowman (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Currently it is broken up, but I think we list 4.61 million in the United States sub-section of the Impact section. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Integrated Kinetic Energy

Does anyone know this value for Helene 2024? I am curious if it was more than Katrina 2005 or Sandy. Thanks Wade Smith0078 (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Felicia (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Well it's not mentioned in the article. I know it was rated as a 4.9 on the IKE scale, but don't know the exact value. If I knew the exact value factually, i'd recommend mentioning it in the article. I was not intending to "waste space" in the talk. Wade Smith0078 (talk) 15:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Unaccounted North Carolina deaths

I've looked through many and many sources and I am still not able to find the other three deaths reported in North Carolina. Anyone got a clue what or where they came from and if they should be removed? Kline • talk • contribs 01:00, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I also searched as well, but none of them mention additional fatalities other than the three already mentioned and noted for North Carolina. I've changed the total back to 3 and the total count to 46+; the change was made here, as a side note. ~ Tails Wx 02:08, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Had trouble figuring out who it was since WWT doesn't do templates. Kline • talk • contribs 02:39, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Elijah(guy who runs the fatalities account on X) has not responded to my inquiry about sources. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I’m no expert but self-published sources are not necessarily all that reliable and they typically fail WP:RS. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hatnote to 1958 storm?

Just want to ask; should we put a hatnote directing to the 1958 storm? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:40, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

No. We should only have a hat note for the set index article and not something specific. _ZZ^Z'S 17:48, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

I was just curious. That’s all. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:49, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

WXFatalities as a source?

im pretty sure this is a self published source, Well, it is tagged as unreliable but it also says that Elijah (the guy who runs the account) is usually reliable, but literally no other sources stated 52, the latest sources stated 46. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 07:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Correct, it's a self-published source. I've removed it from the fatalities table and from the infobox. The infobox doesn't need a citation for the total fatalities since the total is currently reliably sourced in the article body. — Penitentes (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that I had no idea WXFatalities even existed. Probably not a reliable source. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Problem has been solved I think. Now we add state-by-state totals. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

$22 billion damage total

I reverted an edit earlier today (here) that listed the damage total as $22 billion, since the source listed by Moody's Analytics (exact URL to source (requires subscription)) says that the damage amounts could reach US$20–34 billion. This edit was reverted, so I wanted to ask, @GaWxMaN and Penitentes: do you have a source which verifies this damage total? Thank you. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 20:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi—apologies, that looks like a revert error on my part while trying to resolve an edit conflict. I haven't looked into the economic damage estimates at all and I'll presume that you're right and it shouldn't be $22 billion. — Penitentes (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

New image

We should get a more recent image, now that Helene is a storm rather than a disturbance. This will be needed as it appears this storm will become extremely violent. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this will qualify for a more "better" image replacement, but it sure looks impressive now!

[1]https://cdn.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES16/ABI/CONUS/GEOCOLOR/1250x750.jpg 162.196.25.164 (talk) 20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

@CyclonicStormYutu, I think your better image has come to fruition. They now have an image from just before landfall. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Hooray! CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Waffle House closure

Should it be noted that the Crawfordville, FL Waffle House closed? And if you think that mention is weird; I actually do have a reason for asking. Waffle Houses rarely close (see Waffle House Index), and when they do; there is usually a major going on there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll add that it is also extremely rare for a Waffle House to close before the storm even gets there. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would add it. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I’ll defer that to someone else just because I don’t know exactly where I should put it. But I will post the source here. I found it on WCTV at https://www.wctv.tv/2024/09/26/crawfordville-waffle-house-location-closes-helene-barrels-toward-big-bend/ Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 00:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll add it to impacts but if there is precedent for it to go into preparations, then it can be moved there. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t really feel it is important to note. We wouldn’t write about a Walmart closing for a storm, even if it was rare.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Yah but there also isn't a Walmart Index used by FEMA. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

But it’s trivial nonetheless. It’s not worth mentioning a Waffle House closing as opposed to universities, amusement parks, and other more important places.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above comment. I feel like instead of saying that the waffle house closed, we can refer to the waffle house index reaching red instead w/o mentioning specific closure Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning, given how important the Waffle House Index is. NesserWiki (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I should rephrase and say "well-known." NesserWiki (talk) 07:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I would remove it, it’s very trivial and instead should be mentioned on the Waffle House index article itself, not here.IrishSurfer21 (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. It is undue for this article, but is rightly mentioned in Waffle House index#Examples. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I’m fine with only mentioning the Waffle House Index reading. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 16:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not. Just saying that the Waffle House Index was red isn't enough explanation for readers. There needs to be some clarification of what it means here if kept. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

$95-110 billion AccuWeather estimate

I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#AccuWeather for damage estimates about this claim. This concerns whether AccuWeather estimates are at all reliable for all articles, not just this one. Feel free to participate. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I have now noticed someone else already created a post on this matter TheHumanFixer (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

1,073 people missing

There's only two mentions of this in the article, in the lead and infobox, and neither are cited. I also couldn't find any other sources in the article supporting this claim, with another source claiming that a far fewer 73 people are missing. JayTee⛈️ 01:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

https://www.fox29.com/news/helene-latest-sunday-north-carolina-tennessee-georgia-florida-south-carolina

https://www.wlos.com/news/local/live-updates-saturday-director-of-emergency-services-we-have-had-loss-of-life Noah, BSBA^Talk 02:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Appalachia flooding

This source by the NBC states that a once-in-a-thousand-year rainstorm which occurred on September 26, just a day before Helene's landfall. Should this be mentioned somewhere in the article? Tavantius (talk) 12:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would mention it as contributing to the floods, as there is general agreement that it contributed to the floods. I'll find some stuff later to use as sources if needed. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

https://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/wx/afos/p.php?pil=AFDGSP&e=202409261055

https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/nation/2024/09/28/hurricane-helene-tropical-storm-updates-saturday/75417411007/ Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Flood in Honduras

I doubt that the flood on the Goascorán River in Honduras is related to Helene precursor. That region is on the Pacific coast while the formation of Helene was in the Caribbean Sea. I don't think it should be mentioned in the article, it is too far fetch.

Pierre cb (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Probably a John-related topic. CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 21:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

John was all the way in Oaxaca though; I feel like itd be to far ✶Quxyz✶ 19:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I thought it was appropiate to put it here because of the events related to the Central America Gyre being mentioned on this article, and is in fact, where Helene originated from. Televicentro's article which is a quoted page talks about heavy rainfalls over 7 inches (200 mm) in the south due to the Helene precursor with it having most influence over Honduras territory. Sylphurous (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for explaining! CyclonicStormYutu (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Fatalities count

Where are the 20+ fatalities from? I can't seem to find out how we get 20+ from the sources listed. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 15:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

From a cursory glance, I see 19 deaths in all the sources. Seeing as that total will likely increase, I think that 20+ is fine for now. Tavantius (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Can somebody make a table in the article listing the deaths by States and country with references. As it is now it is impossible to asses what is the number. Pierre cb (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I found this on X. [2] The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I can ask Elijah(runner of the account iirc) for more info on discord. I know him from a server that we share in. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 17:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Sept. 28th onward

Currently, there is a bit of an issue with the numbers in the article.

Collapsible list

Lede: The lede says there have been 46 deaths with no citation. Infobox: The infobox says there have been 52 deaths with a citation to X/Twitter. Table: The Impact by State table says there have been 52 deaths broken down as follows: South Carolina: 21 Georgia: 18 Florida: 9 North Carolina: 3 Virginia: 1 Section text: The breakdown of the Impact section is as follows with a total of 47: South Carolina: 19 Georgia: 15 Florida: 9 (though the text says 8) North Carolina: 3 Elsewhere: 1 (in Virginia)

Currently, I am unsure of how to detangle South Carolina and Georgia nor fix the number issues. The South Carolina sources for the 21 deaths in the table are AP which says there have been 17 deaths in South Carolina and X/Twitter which uses a video of a WHNS broadcast that says there have been 21 deaths. (WHNS appears to prefer videos to articles on its website, with the latest video update saying there have been 23 deaths.) The Georgia sources for the 18 deaths are ABC News citing Governor Kemp that there have been 15 deaths; a WJCL article saying there have been two deaths in Jeff Davis County; a WAGA-TV article saying that the Georgia Emergency Management and Homeland Security Agency has confirmed 15 deaths; a WTLV-TV article saying there have been 18 deaths combined in Georgia and Florida with Governor Kemp cited that there have been 11 deaths in Georgia with a breakdown of 5 of the deaths in Wheeler County (2), Pierce County (1), and Laurens County (2); a second WJCL article with Governor Kemp cited again for 11 deaths with a breakdown of 7 of the deaths in Jeff Davis County (4), Laurens County (2), and Liberty County (1); The Guardian reporting 15 deaths citing the spokesperson for the Governor, and a WJBF article listing 17 deaths in the Central Savannah River Area and listing 11 deaths in Georgia with a breakdown of the deaths in Richmond County (5; assumed to be Georgia), McDuffie County (4), and Saluda County which isn't in Georgia. (Which seems to be 19 if combining WTLV, WJCL, and WJBF, not 18 or 15.) If anyone has any suggestions, I would appreciate it. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

The death toll will fluctuate (largely rising) so quickly that it's not worth trying to calculate state tolls from a pastiche of sources. Just find the latest report for any given state and replace the existing source with it.

I have gone through and found the latest updates for each state (as of ~10:30 EDT) and kept it to one reference per state. It currently lists 10 deaths in Florida (per the Tampa Bay Times), 15 in Georgia (per CNN), 20 in South Carolina (per WYFF), 6 in North Carolina (per CNN), and one in Virgina (per CNN), for 52 total. — Penitentes (talk) 14:29, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Question: why are we citing X/Twitter? Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I have no clue, and I personally dislike it. In addition, the Twitter guy now posts the sources of his updates(I think). Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

We are no longer citing any Twitter account for the death toll, nor should we ever have been. CNN is the current source for all of the state-by-state counts as well as the total (with a handful of corroborating sources). — Penitentes (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Accuweather claim $95-110 billion damages

I noticed how Accuweather claim about initial reports on the total damages caused by Hurricane Helene were predicted to be around $95-110 billion keeps getting removed and changed back to the $22-32 billion dollar claim. The opposition states that Accuweather is not a reliable source to the total cost of the damages, but others have point out that AP has also stated around the same amount.

All on social media I have seen pictures and videos of the damages caused by Helene and the total state of the damages being $22-32 billion range seems quite low due to the scope of the damages caused by Helene and hence that it affected many states, so I feel like we might need to consider Accuweather report, but I do understand if we want to wait for a more reliable or multiple sources confirming a range close enough.

Nether less, I will kindly like to hear the opposition on why they won’t use Accuweather’s claim. TheHumanFixer (talk) 01:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Im not too sure either on Accuweather and their reliability, but what Ive gotten based off of others reverting others for using their estimates, is that there is a general consensus that Accuweather is unreliable in damage estimates. 🍙🌀CycloneIns✉ 01:34, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I would wait until other damage reports are revealed to judge if Accuweather's report is accurate or not. I do agree that Accuweather is generally not considered reliable. INeedSupport ^:3 02:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I would not use the estimate(or any estimate right now) considering it vastly differs from (afaik) the only other estimate out by Moody's(insurance company). Wildfireupdateman (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t even think the AP should be considered reliable for damage assessments right now. Let’s just wait until a final assessment comes in. That’s what I think. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Climate change subparagraph

Isn't it redundant to include a section about climate change when every storm is technically enhanced by it? If so, should this section be moved to tropical cyclones and climate change instead? Tavantius (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

FYI, a lengthy discussion was held on this subject with regard to Hurricane Beryl earlier this season, here's the link, as it might be informative here: Talk:Hurricane Beryl/Archive 1#Climate change connection. cheers. Drdpw (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Let me add that, as a result of that discussion, the Beryl article does not have a subsection specifically on the "climate change connection", but does contain a couple sentences about the subject in its Records section. Drdpw (talk) 22:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point about Beryl. I think this information could be in the met history then, since I don't think Helene broke any meteorological records. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

– I boldly integrated the climate change subparagraph sentences into the aftermath section. Drdpw (talk) 14:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Number of missing persons

Could someone put a reference for the number of missing in the Infobox.

Pierre cb (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved: I removed the number as it is currently unverifiable. If someone finds or knows the source, post it here please. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

this one stated around 600 missing SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 07:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

this one stated there are 85 people missing in Tennessee, So that's 685 total. SomeoneWiki04 (talk) 07:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ah, that was why I couldn't find a source that said 685 missing. Readded. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Separate Effects of Hurricane Helene in Appalachia article, or for other states?

Given the amount of widespread and catastrophic damage to several individual towns and settlements across Eastern Tennessee and Western North Carolina (being referred to as North Carolina's Hurricane Katrina in some articles ex. [3]) and the number of unique events related to it such as the breaching of many dams due to Helene's significant rainfall, would it make sense at this time to create a separate article listing the specific impact and responses of the hurricane in Appalachia akin to other wikipedia articles like Effects of Hurricane Beryl in Texas or Effects of Hurricane Katrina in the Southeastern United States?

Some examples of news coverage covering many different events across multiple regions in NC:

[4][5][6][7][8][9][10] Noble Attempt (talk) 03:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's still quite early on after Helene's aftermath, but given the unprecedented scale of damages done in the region, this seems to be the right move. ArkHyena (talk) 09:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I can begin to write the article, add info to it as more details are being reported, and publish it later on once enough information about the different impacts it has had on multiple different Appalachian settlements, the kinds of impacts (e.g. dam overtopping, bridge collapses, inundation of neighborhoods, mudslides, record breaking rainfall, etc.), and the aftermath/responses have been released and verified. Noble Attempt (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The article currently probably underestimates the disaster's damage, for example many towns in Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee, like Chimney Rock, Asheville, and Hendersonville, got range from flooded to completely destroyed.

I think this is understandable maybe, because it is right after the storm and we still don't know how much is the full extent of the destruction, for example, I calculate there might be more than 100 deaths. But I know, we can't add this to an encyclopedia until we have sources and news reports, and this could take a time because almost all the roads in Western North Carolina got closed. Lan Pee (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Before making a new article, this article is still quite bare-bones (only 4,500 words), so consider adding the information to the main article first, especially regarding the aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. There is so much devastation to sort through and put into this article first before that can even be considered. Raskuly (talk) 23:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I found this post today, which seems to indicate that some areas of NC are not being publicized enough for how bad things currently are. Take it as you like, but I just wanted to throw that out there. ChessEric 05:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

That is a good observation, since I also noticed that there has been a relatively low amount of detailed coverage outside of general headlines and death counts on the typical media sites I use for updating articles. Despite this, I've found that after some time, there is now a good number of detailed articles from local news outlets and websites, which has been helpful in adding details to this article on the degree and scope of the damage done.

Some examples: [11][12][13][14]

Based on feedback from other users, I won't submit a draft article for review or directly publish it until there is enough details for many of the specific settlements impacted and their aftermath for it to be comparable to the scope of other similar kinds of articles such as Effects of Hurricane Floyd in North Carolina or Effects of Hurricane Jeanne in the Mid-Atlantic region, as examples. Noble Attempt (talk) 08:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted that some of the lack of publicity is because reporters can't get in, with many regions still being entirely isolated. It will take days, if not weeks, before these regions can be reconnected. By then, it's likely that coverage will increase significantly. ArkHyena (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Please note that Black Mountain PD has not put out any official statement corroborating anything in that viral post, even as they have posted multiple statements on their official Facebook page and elsewhere. A single viral social media post is NOT a reliable source. Jpers36 (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong support – I was literally about to suggest this. And I’m sure a lot of the folks on WP:APPA will probably agree with me. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I do think the info (and there’s a lot of it) that needs to be added as @Hurricanehink mentioned. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:39, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Yea, this article is still under 6,000 words, and the aftermath is still quite short. Please keep adding the information to this article, especially the aftermath, which will change a lot day to day, as well as the overall impacts. Thanks to everyone who is keeping this devastating story up to date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I 1,000% agree with you on that @Hurricanehink. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, but wait - I would wait for more information to come out about current inaccessible areas before writing/submitting the article. In addition, I feel like we should expand the aftermath section in addition to writing the new article. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

In addition, there are many other cases where a separate article was created for regional effects, such as Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York or Effects of Hurricane Harvey in Texas. Wildfireupdateman (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with regional effects articles is that there will be a lot of overlap with the main article. I could see North Carolina getting a sub-article, since that does appear to have the worst impacts. But considering how many states were affected, the other states need to have appropriately long sections in the main article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I would personally consolidate the NC/TN impacts into one article, since those appear to be the two hardest hit states. I wouldn't do it/would wait for other states Wildfireupdateman (talk) 20:23, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree that consolidating NC/TN impacts into one article would be a good idea after waiting for further information, especially since one notable event involved the overtopping of water at Walters Dam in Haywood County, NC, that caused significant down stream flooding in Cocke County, TN, connecting the states in their impacts. [15]

If a regional focus would be better for making an article an equal size to the main Hurricane Helene article, I suggest that it could possibly focus on "Effects in Appalachia", including western Virginia, eastern Kentucky, West Virginia, and northwest Georgia, since those regions were also strongly impacted by the storm and its remnants in a similar manner to NC and TN due to the remnants' moisture deposition over the mountain ranges causing similar impacts. In addition, many of the new articles I've seen about the disaster mention or focus on Appalachia as a whole.

Example articles: [16][17][18][19][20] Noble Attempt (talk) 22:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Also agree, additionally since effects in NC were disproportionately felt in the portions of the state that are a part of Appalachia. ArkHyena (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, Support, but wait The thing about no news from disconnected communities, that means there's no news. It's that crystal ball thing. Perhaps several articles will need to be spun off in due course, but as of now, it seems the story in Appalachia is most compelling due to its rarity, severity, and lethality. (Hurricane deaths in Appalachia? Was that even a thing before Helene?) There might be other equally compelling ways to divide this aftermath though, but we have to learn the story first. I strongly suspect the story in Appalachia will be the way to go though, eventually. Dcs002 (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL Wildfireupdateman (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I realized after the fact that the tweet actually doesn’t come from a reliable source, but my observation still stands. ChessEric 18:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Support for North Carolina; wait for other states. The impacts in North Carolina and the scale certainly support such. However, we need to get more information and fill things out for other states to add articles. CrazyC83 (talk) 20:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support: The damages done by Helene to each individual state, especially Georgia and North Carolina, is widespread and the name is certainly worthy of retirement next spring. HarukaAmaranth 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina

There is definitely consensus for a sub-article, given the devastation occurring. While I can't tell anyone what to do, I highly suggest focusing the sub-article just on North Carolina, which has the highest death toll, and the situation in Asheville alone would be worth having an article. So not that I want to stop the above discussion about effects in other areas, but there is probably going to be overlap with the main article if it is too broad, like Effects of Hurricane Helene in Appalachia. Yes, news articles are focusing on the region as a whole, and that is why the main article will probably still be developed, but North Carolina clearly is where the focus is right now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:18, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I wrote the basis of an initial article draft using the article name you linked, and I endorse anyone who wants to make changes to, give feedback on, or add information to the draft in order to make the draft fit for submission. Thank you to everyone who has given feedback and opinions on this topic! Noble Attempt (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Really great work! I published the draft, it definitely has enough now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The image of the satellite loop should probably be changed to an image of Asheville flooded whenever a suitable free image is found. Other than that; I think it should be published. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it already has been. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Published that is. The image is still the same old satellite loop. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Citation 173

"The Hiwassee River in Towns County crested at over ten feet (3.0 m), just one foot (0.30 m) below the record, and flooded pastures and a campground."

Flooded parts of a campground, never reaching campers. Per article. 107.130.116.202 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Clarified. Raskuly (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

200 missing in all of North Carolina or just Buncombe County?

This source: [21] metions 200 people missing in North Carolina, whereas this other source [22] mentions 72 deaths and 200 missing persons just in Buncombe County. If there are 200 missing in Buncombe County then how many are missing in the rest of the state? Undescribed (talk) 14:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Claims of FEMA running out due to SSP donations earlier this year

The major talking point amongst right-wing circles currently is that FEMA ran out of money because in April the Department of Homeland Security funded around $600 million dollars for the temporary settlement of those awaiting the outcome of their immigration proceedings and other costs per this press release https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20240412/department-homeland-security-announces-300-million-direct-funding, I was thinking this should be added to the political response section as it highlights how some groups are politicizing this event ahead of the election and also gives some more context ElGato1868 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Could you provide sources about this talking point and does this "talking point" even have credibility? Hurricane Helene may have significant implications for the upcoming election so I am all aboard writing about the storm's political ramifications, but we can't add things that aren't true unless we decide to add a section dedicated to conspiracies. Raskuly (talk) 10:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The claim that FEMA ran out of funding because they spent too much on immigrants has already been debunked because FEMA has separate funds for immigrants and disaster relief.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/10/04/trump-fema-claim-debunked-agency-not-running-out-of-money-because-of-migrants/ Wildfireupdateman (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, I was thinking about this after I went to bed and it also occurred to me that many other costly disasters have happened this year anyway so this claim didn't make much sense. Raskuly (talk) 20:47, 4 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 [23] 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)

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)

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)

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. [24] 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)

"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/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)

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)

there is no SYNTH in this edit

it should be restored, Anotherperson123

https://en.wikipedia.org/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/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,[25] Myself,[26] and Drdpw.[27] 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.[28] 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)

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)

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)

Probably because Maria didn’t impact the mainland. Many U.S. statistics do not include Puerto Rico. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:01, 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)

Actually, scratch that question. I’ve went ahead and boldly added it. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 18:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Are there any estimates of the damage toll besides the Florida estimate?

I'd imagine it's at least in the tens of billions in North Carolina alone. NesserWiki (talk) 10:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Handling of Harris-related quotes

So as far as I'm aware the Vice President has no powers related to disaster response. The best they can do is act as a figure head so I think we should handle any quotes within that context. Ergzay (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify further, I think additional supporting material, such as including statements about their enumerated powers is relevant so as to give the reader an NPOV view of associated comments. The same goes for other people running for election like Donald Trump, but some readers may see the Vice President, because it's an actual governmental position as somehow having powers relevant to the crisis. That's why such additional supporting material may be appropriate. Ergzay (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw Given that you've removed my edit, could you further explain why? I'm not aware of any rule against tangential clarification. Also, don't delete talk page discussions just because you disagree with them. Ergzay (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Should the two subarticles and certain sections be combined into a new subarticle?

Since an editor on Effects of Hurricane Helene in Georgia suggested that the subarticle be merged. I responded with what I believed the destination article should be. I suggested that Effects of Hurricane Helene in Georgia and Effects of Hurricane Helene in North Carolina and the preparations, impact, and aftermath subsections of Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia in Hurricane Helene into one article titled Effects of Hurricane Helene in the Southeastern United States just like what happened with Hurricane Katrina. The idea did not take off due to the lack of participants in the article, so I'm bringing it here. Tell me what you all think. _ZZ^Z'S 01:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak oppose While additional subarticles likely need to be made as the article size is over 8,000 bytes, I don’t think merging them all in is the answer (this is different from Katrina, where there were differences in how the articles were fleshed out.) In fact, I think this might result in the North Carolina information being undermined, and individual records were likely broken in other states too. This would likely both strip down the main article and result in a really long sub article. There’s a reason a sub article for Appalachia was never made. 134.6.104.54 (talk) 21:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then would it be better if the North Carolina article was kept just like Katrina with New Orleans? _ZZ^Z'S 23:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Copying my oppose from the other discussion on this matter. Hurricane Helene is already large enough as it is (56k bytes prose) and the North Carolina article is going to be very much expandable to the point where nothing should be merged with it. It's already nearly 30k bytes of prose. We should leave things alone for now and focus on expanding the content as needed. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Will it be better if the North Carolina article was kept, @Hurricane Noah? _ZZ^Z'S 01:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  It should be kept but splitting off the other items as they currently are would be UNDUE and simply would serve to gut the Hurricane Helene article. Noah, BSBA^Talk 10:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Then could the Florida section be split or at least the Georgia article be merged or even both? There is more information on Florida's impacts then there are on Georgia's and I do not believe it is fair to keep a small subarticle and not split a larger subsection. Besides, Georgia was not the most impacted by the storm. _ZZ^Z'S 10:54, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Courtesy ping: Hurricane Noah _ZZ^Z'S 13:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support Splitting out the Florida subsection but strong oppose on merging the Georgia article in seeing as this article is already nearly 9,000 words. 104.246.112.81 (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  So you'd rather split the Florida subsection rather than merge the South Atlantic states except for North Carolina into one article and have no care for preventing subsection hierarchy? What the heck is wrong with Wikipedia? _ZZ^Z'S 21:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Any merges or splits as things stand currently would be UNDUE. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unsure this, undue that. How would things be "undue" if all South Atlantic states but North Carolina were merged? _ZZ^Z'S 21:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Splitting off those states when there's not an excess of information in the article is what would be UNDUE. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Also adding that there were impacts outside of those states too. How would a 10k-byte summary of four states in the main article gut it? The article already exceeds 200k bytes and a split is due. _ZZ^Z'S 21:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Article markup size is entirely irrelevant as splits are based on wordcount/prose size. If you remove almost every detail for those states as a real summary would require (about 1-3 paragraphs in total depending on that article's size), it would indeed gut this article. This article is currently at an appropriate size and thus nothing should be split or merged. If you want to flesh out those subsections first, do that and then propose a split. Until then, I will oppose any kind of split. Noah, BSBA^Talk 21:51, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  How is almost 9k words an appropriate size? I struggle to find a valid reason for that statement? _ZZ^Z'S 21:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  An article on a topic with more information will have a larger article as is natural. Large topic articles will generally be within 8,000-15,000 words. Noah, BSBA^Talk 22:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• 'Oppose - I would rather keep the sub-articles separate and keep building them. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to withdraw this proposal. I can't take this anymore. _ZZ^Z'S 22:13, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Climate Change, Relative to What?

"...researchers found that Helene had 10% more rain, had winds that were 13 miles per hour more intense, and drew energy from water that was 2.3 degrees Fahrenheit warmer due to climate change"

As stated, there is no reference point or baseline, which makes this statement unscientific. 10% more when compared to what? 136.41.224.254 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a Times subscription so I cannot verify the claim. ✶Quxyz✶ 18:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've tagged the text in question. Hopefully someone with access to the source can clarify. - ZLEA _T\^C 00:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Helene (2024)

There is already an article for another storm named Helene, and to me it makes sense to put in the year. Just wanted to check in with you guys. Joseph Ca98 (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not think adding the year to the article title would be a good idea. This year's incarnation of Helene is, by far and away, the primary topic – considerably deadlier and costlier than any previous Helene, with a great deal more media coverage to boot. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Just wanted to know your opinions guys Joseph Ca98 (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Current title was discussed Talk:Hurricane Helene/Archive 1#Move to Hurricane Helene? and approved Talk:Hurricane Helene/Archive 1#Requested move 27 September 2024 several weeks ago. Cheers. Drdpw (talk) 22:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, it doesnt make sense to readd the disambiguation year bc its clearly the most notable Helene by a large margin, I mean just look at the damages and deaths! Insendieum ✉️ 23:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 November 2024

Please remove the “ overall 5th costliest hurricane in U.S. history” in the info box, since those are unofficial estimates and not confirmed by a reliable source. Coster85 (talk) 12:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Would like to add to this request and ask that any sort of mention the storm being the xth costliest or most destructive anywhere in the article be removed. JayTee⛈️ 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

• I concur with this edit request. Official damage totals from the U.S. government, who officially still have Helene's damage total marked as "TBD", as seen on NOAA's Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters list. That is why "(Unofficial estimates)" is in the infobox, as the currently listed damage total is not the official damage total, but rather an RS's estimate. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:39, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?

There is a disagreement between editors on if the conspiracy theories/A.I.-generated images related to this hurricane should be mention in the lead at all, or if it should be given one or two sentences. For background see the split article, Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support — As the editor in the disagreement who initially added the content, it if worth mentioning. The lead is support to mention a summary of the content in the article. A lot of the “Aftermath” section mentions conspiracy theories and things related to FEMA-related conspiracy theories. Heck, the split article for the conspiracy theories is linked at the top of the “Political response” section. So yes, to help summarize the article, I strongly believe a sentence or two should be given in the lead for the conspiracy theories/A.I.-generated content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Drdpw: As the initial disagreeing editor, your thoughts here on why it is not noteworthy at all for the lead would be very much appreciated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Such a paragraph in the lead would be WP:UNDUE. At most, perhaps, a sentence stating that The storm generated much political and social media controversy. Drdpw (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter I only see one sentence in the entire aftermath section related to conspiracy theories, and it doesn't mention anything about A.I.-generated images. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Zzzs: since you are determined to revert the content, I request you comment regarding it here. To note, Drdpw is not opposed to at least 1 sentence mentioning it. You seem to be reverting it entirely, so since you are currently the only editor (through reverts) set on removing it entirely from the lead, your thoughts are requested here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

  No comment. I was simply upholding the status quo until consensus is reached. _ZZ^Z'S 17:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 November 2024

Change "October 9 ( (later extended through October 28)" to "October 9 (later extended through October 28)" to fix the typo. I also recommend to mention that classes were made entirely remote and optional for the rest of the semester once classes returned on the 28th. Legority (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Legority: I've corrected the typo. What is the source for the other edit you're suggesting? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Here: https://web.archive.org/web/20241031033340/https://new.unca.edu/bulldogalert/ Legority (talk) 18:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)