Jump to content

Talk:Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

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

Adding an origin/spread section?

[edit]

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

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

Did you know nomination

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

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

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

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


Scope

[edit]

I have two questions about the scope of this article:

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

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

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

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

[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Discussions Concerning This Article

[edit]

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

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

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

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dan Leonard (talk · contribs) 20:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: It is a wonderful world (talk · contribs) 21:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Looking forward to getting severe brain rot reviewing this... It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dan Leonard, I have begun my review below. You will notice I have made a lot of points about neutrality and vagueness, which seems to be a general issue with the article as a whole. Rather than failing based on these issues, I would like to give you the opportunity to address my points, and then fix the similar issues that recur through the rest of the article. Once you have done this, I will continue my review. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dan Leonard, once you feel you have "fix[ed] the similar issues that recur through the rest of the article", let me know. It may be already the case. IAWW (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made alterations to nearly every section, trying to attribute statements better and head off neutrality criticisms. All of the specific language issues you've already noted now has a reply with the diff of its change. Any edit specifically targeting the criticisms is noted by "per GA1" in the edit summary, with an overall diff since nomination at Special:Diff/1263518454/cur. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:40, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dan Leonard I have finished a first prose review below. I think this article is on the right track regarding neutrality, but it still has some issues. In my opinion it is quite hard to write from a neutral point of view on a topic like this. IAWW (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prose (Criteria 1a, 1b, 4) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

The previously quiet 2024 Atlantic hurricane season began experiencing a surge in activity in late September. With Hurricane Helene and Hurricane Milton, two extremely damaging and deadly major hurricanes, impacting the United States in just two weeks, it led to heightened attention by the media and on social media.: I don't think this paragraph performs the function of a lead paragraph adequately. WP:LEADSENTENCE says "The first sentence should introduce the topic", but this first sentence begins with background information which does not introduce the specific topic at all. Neither does anything in the paragraph mention the specific topic. I think this information belongs in the "Background" section. I suggest changing the first sentence to something like "Late in the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season, conspiracy theories spread about the nature of hurricanes Helene and Milton, and about the post-storm disaster recovery" It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied your suggested lead into the article. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To critique my own example, I think "recovery" should be "recoveries"? IAWW (talk) 17:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious material in the lead should be cited, (WP:LEADCITE) ideally in the style of the lead citations in Marjorie Taylor Greene. The claims about Donald Trump definitely need a citation like this. It is a wonderful world (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copied three references from the body into the lead for the three main living people mentioned. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good It is a wonderful world (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upon reading through again, I'm not sure about the reliability of the source supporting the claim "Numerous falsehoods and conspiracies were spread by several American far-right influencers". The source reads as opinionated, and WP:RSPSS says "Editors should beware that The Atlantic does not always clearly delineate between reporting and opinion content". Also, this is a claim that should probably be supported by multiple reliable sources due to its controversial nature (see [2] and [3] in Marjorie Taylor Greene which does this really well). The other two citations in the lead should also probably be in this style. IAWW (talk) 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These widespread rumors caused significant difficulties for first responders and official recovery workers, hampering rescue efforts, and some officials were subject to threats of violence: I think all of this should also be cited. It's all in my opinion "likely to be challenged" (WP:CITELEAD) due to the controversial nature of this article.

Background

[edit]

After the exceptionally early Hurricane Beryl: Could you add what month this was? "Exceptionally early" doesn't mean much to me as I don't know when the hurricane season typically starts. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to After the earliest-forming Category 5 hurricane on record, Hurricane Beryl, per cited source. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is great IAWW (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In what was expected to be the peak season, however, there were few storms and some called the season a "bust".: The "and" should have a comma before it (WP:CINS), it would also be nice to know who "some" is. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed CINS issue. Don't have clarification for "some" as cited source (meteorologist) just says it was a common term. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine IAWW (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricanes Helene and Milton developed as Category 4 and 5 hurricanes: This sentence could be interpreted in two ways. Either they both developed through category four to category five, or Helene only reached category four while Milton reached category five. I am guessing you mean the second interpretation, in which case adding "respectively" onto the end of the sentence would clarify this. Also, I think the numbers should be spelled as "four" and "five" according to MOS:NUM. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence already includes respectively, you may have missed it? And hurricane categories are not spelled out, see Saffir–Simpson scale. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm literally blind what the hell! IAWW (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

breaking this lull: Using "this" to refer to something last mentioned in the previous paragraph feels odd. I suggest changing to "the". IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to breaking the lull. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helene caused massive damage: Vague, and "massive" lacks neutrality. Could this be replaced with the cost of damages or another fact which quantifies the damages? IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Helene caused extensive damage across the Southeastern United States, becoming the deadliest hurricane to strike the U.S. mainland since Hurricane Katrina with new reference to support claim. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
better IAWW (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helene caused massive damage across the Southeastern United States, and in particular caused flooding in inland North Carolina, far from the coast:

  • Using "and" here doesn't make sense, since the flooding wasn't in addition to the damage, it was part of it.
  • "far from the coast" can be cut, you already said it was inland

IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to In particular, the hurricane caused flooding in western North Carolina, hundreds of miles from the coast; NOAA described this unusually high inland rainfall as a "worst-case scenario" for the region with new reference to support claim. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
much better IAWW (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "National Weather Service" IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The season became the second costliest in history, with $190 billion in damages and breaking records for amount of storm activity in the later period of a hurricane season.: "breaking records" is a dangling modifier, so the sentence needs to be restructured to clarify what subject "breaking records" is referring to. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weather modification

[edit]

Prominent right-wing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones needs a better source than a legal advocacy organization. The article Alex Jones has better citations for this that you can use. IAWW (talk) 12:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SPLC is considered generally reliable for extremist groups and is also the source used in the lead of the Alex Jones article, the sourcing of which I pulled from directly. However, I've added five more references to the citation. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
better IAWW (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "Meteorologists" IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"has the ability to" -> "can": conciseness IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to can. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

claiming that transmissions were involved in Hurricane Helene: Transmissions from what? What type of transmissions? And, did the conspiracy theorists specify how they think this could happen? IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting catch, the cited source links to this tweet for "HAARP transmissions" but the tweet doesn't contain that phrase. Changed to claiming that the device created the storm which is supported by the AFP article. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is nice IAWW (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agence France-Presse reported on popular social media posts claiming that transmissions were involved in Hurricane Helene, a research scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, which runs the project, stated that is too low-powered to have the ability to control weather.: This is very hard to read as it is such a long sentence punctuated by nothing but commas. Also, it feels grammatically incorrect in some way. I suggest splitting it up into two sentences. IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added semicolon to split sentence. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest linking "University of Alaska Fairbanks" IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to have the ability to control weather: Conciseness IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed have the ability to. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where are HAARP and NEXRAD located? IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added in Alaska for HAARP and nationwide for NEXRAD. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a radar system it emits only a small amount of energy and is not capable of influencing weather: If this is a causal connection here, it's best not to use the connective "and". Make the causal connection clear (as long as it is supported by the source). IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to As a radar system it emits only a small amount of energy, which NOAA's Hurricane Research Division states is too low to influence weather and expanded quote from source for verification. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good IAWW (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals for weather modification to redirect hurricane paths have been found to induce feelings of anger in Florida residents: It needs to be clear this study was from 2012, much before this year's hurricane season. I think this should also probably be moved to the background section. IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the word "regardless" as a connective makes sense here, and doubt it is supported by the sources. IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed regardless. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

meteorologists no longer consider it feasible: Date this claim (MOS:DATED), it could change in the future. Also, is it possible to get a more up-to-date reference? IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to in 1998 the American Meteorological Society adopted an official position considering it unfeasible. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 06:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good IAWW (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Land acquisition

[edit]

rumors spread: On social media I presume? It would be good if this was clear. IAWW (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

had been intentionally abandoned: It was the residents who did the abandoning. Did the US government force them to do so? IAWW (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Florida, WUSF reported similar rumors spreading[that spread] in the days leading [up] to Hurricane Milton's landfall, leading to which caused the governor's office to rebut claims of FEMA seizing Floridians' homes.: Clearer, and fixes some grammatical errors IAWW (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is "FEMA"? IAWW (talk) 10:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expenditure of relief funds on migrants

[edit]

"illegal immigrants", and [he] claimed: Add "he" to satisfy WP:CINS

On October 3: According to the source this should be October 4 I think

"illegal immigrants": Should be "migrants" not "immigrants"

FEMA has not redirected any disaster relief funding to migrant resettlement: I think this should be rephrased to "there is no evidence that FEMA redirected any disaster relief funding to migrant resettlement". Stating something is false is different from stating that there is no evidence for it. The source supports the latter. If you would like, you could also include that the Washington fact check found the claim to be false ([30]).

To summarize the essence of the paragraph, this would give "Donald Trump claimed it, there is no evidence for it, the Washington Post found it to be false", which I think well summarizes the published sources.

FEMA blocking aid

[edit]

social media posts claiming that law enforcement in North Carolina sought to arrest FEMA staff: The social media posts were posted during the saga, so it should be "were seeking" rather than "sought" to match the tense. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

amplifying false claims: Source says "no evidence", not that they fact checked it and determined it to be false. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Real Raw News falsely claimed that the United States Marine Corps were using snipers to kill FEMA employees.: Be clear that it was Real Raw News' twitter account, not their website. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DHS Secretary: Is this the abbreviation for Homeland Security Secretary? If so, define this acronym when the title is first used. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, FEMA director of public affairs Jaclyn Rothenberg, and Asheville mayor Esther Manheimer received antisemitic attacks online: The titles, like "Director of Public Affairs" and "Mayor", should be capitalized. IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are "credible threats"? IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA has received IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FEMA has received credible threats directed at its staff, including calls for militias to shoot emergency responders: The example given is not actually a "threat" IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A report of militias hunting FEMA staff: "A report" is very vague. By whom, and why did FEMA not determine this to be part of the rest of the fake news circulating at the time? IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

relocate their work in Rutherford County: Replace "in" with "to" or "from" to it is clearer IAWW (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other misinformation

[edit]

I don't see why this heading is necessary IAWW (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AI-generated images

[edit]

I think the title should be something like "AI- and computer-generated content" to be broad enough to encompass everything in the text

Social media featured many viral AI-generated images supposedly depicting the hurricane and its response: "many" and "viral" are opinions not supported by the source. I'm also not sure linking to AI slop is neutral, and the word "featured" is weird here—the social media company didn't "feature" them, they were normal social media posts.

After Helene, an AI-generated image of a girl holding a puppy while sitting in a boat floating on flooded waters circulated among Republicans, who used it as evidence of failures of the Biden administration to respond to the disaster: Sourced to The Atlantic, and reads opinionated. See the concerns outlined in one of the above points.

After Helene, an AI-generated image of a girl holding a puppy while sitting in a boat floating on flooded waters circulated among Republicans, who used it as evidence of failures of the Biden administration to respond to the disaster: The Guardian source says there is "no credible reports", not that it is definitely false

AI-generated images depicting flooding in Walt Disney World posted to Telegram by Russian state news agency RIA Novosti were quickly republished by Russian news networks and spread widely online on the English-speaking Internet: The source says they were on the English-speaking parts of the internet first, and it does not support "widely". Even if it did, that would be an opinion. "quickly" is also an unsupported opinion.

and spread widely online on the English-speaking Internet: I don't think "Internet" should be capitalised here.

Suggest linking "Reuters"

Risk of dam collapse in Cuba

[edit]

The dam never reached full capacity nor sustained any damage from the hurricane: The source uses the word "claimed". You don't want to be more certain than the source.

Attributed to military and water experts per the source. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Effects

[edit]

Multiple commentators alleged that Republican politicians' promotion of these claims was intended to gain an advantage in the 2024 United States presidential election: Unsourced

"seeking an edge" isn't quite verbatim of the source

Suggest linking "The Boston Globe"

What is "the GOP"?

The Guardian misinformation reporter Rachel Leingang noted that: "Argued" or "opined" would be more neutral than "noted".

Local officials and relief workers have had to expend: They didn't have to expend, they chose to

might otherwise be[have been] used: Keep the past tense

FEMA added a page on its website to rebut viral falsehoods: Viral not supported and opinionated. Maybe replace "viral falsehoods" with "claims".

whose district was heavily affected by Hurricane Helene: I think this should include the district and party he is a member of.

many false claims: No evidence ≠ false

where recent changes to content moderation had made it more difficult to discern reliable sources: Opinion, attribute with something like "argued" or "claimed".

See also

[edit]

I think "US" should be "U.S." to match the rest of the article, but I'm not sure what the MOS has to say about this.

MOS:US says U.S. is acceptable in article body for some articles written in American English. If you're referring to the text following the link to FEMA camps conspiracy theory, that comes from the article's short description, automatically transcluded via {{annotated link}}, which cannot be edited here. Regardless, I've updated the article to use US over U.S. so the whole article is unified. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 04:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Nice to know. IAWW (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Health/formatting (Criterion 2a) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

No issues with link rot.

Reliability (Criterion 2b) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Spot check (Criteria 2b, 2c, 2d) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Copyvio (Criterion 2d) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Earwig finds nothing of concern, will check further on spot check.

Scope (Criteria 3a, 3b) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Stable (Criterion 5) checkY

[edit]

Media Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Tags (Criterion 6a) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

Captions (Criterion 6b) Magenta clockclock

[edit]

AI-generated image of Donald Trump assisting in disaster relief, shared online in September 2024: Cite this

Done Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 05:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asheville Mayor Esther Manheimer, FEMA director Deanne Criswell, North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper, and President Joe Biden speak during an aerial tour to survey damage caused by Hurricane Helene aboard Marine One on October 2, 2024: I think it should be "speaking"?

Suggestions (not needed for GA promotion)

[edit]

Add kph conversion to "90 mph" (template: convert) IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and does not have the ability to control weather: Since the main conspiracy theory seems to hinge directly on this point, it would be good if some better sourcing could be provided for this. IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would benefit from making your writing more concise. I highlighted some examples in the review, but if you would like to improve this further, WP:REDEX is a great resource. IAWW (talk) 14:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment from Pbritti

[edit]

Regarding scope, I was surprised to notice that the article neglected to mention the sole instance of politically motivated discrimination that has been alleged by authorities. I have added this material, but have to apologize as the specific way the harv citation format is being used here is something I'm not familiar with. I accept responsibility for standardizing those refs/citations, but my understanding is that non-standardized citations will not impede the review. Since I'm technically a contributor to the article, consider my praise of the prose here simply a kind statement rather than stepping on the toes of reviewer IIAWW. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pbritti I really appreciate this. I am not very knowledgeable about either hurricanes or conspiracy theories, so probably wouldn't have identified this. If you have any more scope concerns please do comment, and do not be concerned about "stepping on my toes"! It is a wonderful world (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@It is a wonderful world: I am, sadly, personally familiar (if not scholarly knowledgeable) with both. Having read the article, that was the only scope issue that leapt out at me. Overall, you've picked a fascinating article to review and it has been well-treated by the hard work of the nominator! If you need a second pair of eyes, ping me. I'll make a comment here when I actually have a bit more time to commit to standardizing those citations (or finding a widget that'll do it for me). ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the addition – I hadn't followed up on the news after originally drafting the article. Apologies about the nonstandard citation format too, it was something I did to organize my thoughts into an annotated bibliography back when the article was a draft and is admittedly a bit unwieldy after it grew into a full article. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracy_theories_about_the_2024_Atlantic_hurricane_season&oldid=1263643797"