This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
U.S. state of
New York on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve
New Jersey–related articles to
Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the
discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Barack Obama, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Barack ObamaWikipedia:WikiProject Barack ObamaTemplate:WikiProject Barack ObamaBarack Obama articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the
project page for details.
Some, not all, of the material being added is not directly related to this so called controversy. That constitutes original research. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail, but I guess we'll see. I am not doing to edit this article again. Good luck. --
Malerooster (
talk)
02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
OK, great, now the "scope" of the article has changed so more "material" can be added? I still want to see Seamus the dog worked into the article, then it will be complete. --
Malerooster (
talk)
03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I disagree that it is original research. Both McCain's response and Brown's response are relevant to the article, at least with the current scope.
Casprings (
talk)
03:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Their responses have nothing to do with this. Brown, especially has nothing to do with it as the article does not even mention Romney. You are creating
synthesis of material by making a connection which does not exist. You are putting forth an idea which is not expressly made in the source, namely that Brown's statement futhered this farce of a controversy.
Arzel (
talk)
03:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The title states, in WP's voice that the issue of FEMA funding (and its politicization in the wake of Sandy) is a)solely a Romney issue, and b) a "controversy" worthy of an Article. NPOV would require mention of the cuts proposed by Romney's opponent, cuts which could arguably be the 4% specifically proposed or the $900 million cuts resulting from the Presidentially suggested Sequestration coming in January. --
Anonymous209.6 (
talk)
16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Obama agreed to a 3% cut to the FEMA budget. However, he agreed to it because the Republicans in Congress wanted it. As long as that is added, I have no problem putting in a sourced sentence. However I think the title stands. It is his opinions and positions that got coverage and made it WP:N, not the President.
Casprings (
talk)
16:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a collection of
unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert
their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating
undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid
advertising and unverified claims (for films, see
WP:NFF). In particular:...
It should be apparent from this that citing sources about the potential effects of the hurricane on the election is appropriate. I should add that in this particular case there is very little difference between "speculation" and "history" - we're not magically going to know how many people were deterred by the hurricane after the election, even if the sources have a few more numbers to crunch. In a sense, the forward-looking predictions are actually more reliable, because they won't be trying to explain the numbers post hoc, but are putting down their hypotheses in black and white for subsequent evaluation when the results come in.
Wnt (
talk)
00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Your own words betray you. You are basically arguing that we need to present a crystal ball because it might be more reliable than the historical view. Aside from that very strange logic, you are actively violating crystal and presenting the information as a moving current news event. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, why do you feel the need to use WP as a newspaper? Let the events unfold and then put them into the correct article (not this contrived one which will likely be deleted anyway).
Arzel (
talk)
01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge proposal
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
That would be fairly pointless in my opinion. This article is now a watered-down version of the original and now only includes a few disparate notes which have already been included in their respective articles (most seem to have been copied from them in fact). Merging content from this article into
political impact of Hurricane Sandy would have little, if any, value at all. The original of this article was a pile of POV-pushing
WP:SYNTH rubbish and the only reason it now contains next to no content is that other editors have, quite rightly, taken steps to stop the rot. Go ahead and merge if you wish but you'll find there's not much of value to take from this article now and insert in that one. Best just to let this one be deleted and spend you time and effort working to ensure the other one doesn't go the same way.
Stalwart111(talk)00:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Actually, I have no interest in either article. My note above was purely administrative. A speedy deletion tag was placed on the other article on the grounds that the content of each was substantially the same, and when I found the two articles weren't similar, I declined the speedy deletion nomination. I re-tagged it for a merge, posting the note above as is standard procedure. Do with it as you like. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I think you and I are in the same place - I'm
Australian and couldn't care less about the US election. The article showed up at AFD and I commented from there. The POV got acutely worse in response and then progressively better as other editors got involved. It is sorting itself out. Cheers,
Stalwart111(talk)01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC).reply
Regardless of how POV or not this article is, there is DEFINITELY no need for two articles with titles with the same meaning (political impact = political ramifications). First merge, and then discuss deletion or improvement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ypnypn (
talk •
contribs)
04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Merge. and, since this is the second article, THIS one should be merged to the OTHER. Should also bear in mind that, editing Wednesday, most of this will have to be deleted as wrong, and the request for a hearing by the minority is a statement with no impact; it will with certainty never happen. --
Anonymous209.6 (
talk)
04:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
First in time works for water rights in Colorado but we should merge the weaker into the stronger article. I believe the other is the stronger article. Bring any unique NPOV and RS info from here to that one.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk)
04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Support - with the understanding that there seems to be a fair bit of support for deleting this article at the associated AFD anyway. If it remains, I have no problem with any remaining (different) content being merged from this article over to the other (even though this one was started first). Obviously no need for both. Just not sure anything from this one is worth keeping. But... whatever.
Stalwart111(talk)07:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
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.
Election day stupidity...
A brand new
WP:SPA IP editor showed up to reframe the entire Effect on campaigning section into what now amounts to Romney: Bad, Obama: Good by over-emphasising two particular sources. An obvious
WP:WEIGHT issue. It has now become akin to the same POV-pushing rubbish this article started with. Have tagged it - hopefully this article will be deleted anyway and/or people will lose interest in vadalising after tomorrow (today for you Americans).
Stalwart111(talk)11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Globalize tag removal
I removed the globalize maintenance tag because, to my knowledge, the U.S. was the only country that Sandy affected that had an election going on. If someone can show me a source that says Bermuda's parliament didn't meet or something, I suppose that could be added, but Sandy affected the U.S. the most severely, especially since the U.S. is in the midst of a presidential election. Thus, I've started this discussion per the
WP:BRD model.
GoPhightins!18:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
That tag was a remnant of merging two articles. I would have removed it myself for the rationale you provided, but I forgot about it. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
Political impact of Hurricane Sandy →
Political impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States – The US is not the only place where storms can have political impact. It does not matter if there is an ongoing election at the time, as can be seen from Hurricane Katrina, which did not occur during an election, but nevertheless impacted the political life of Louisiana. This article deals solely with the political impact in the US, not of anywhere else. There's nothing about political corruption and related storm damage from countries outside the US. The current title indicates a
WP:Systematic bias of considering only the US. --
65.92.181.190 (
talk)
08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
'Comment it's not disambiguation,
WP:ASTONISH, there is no content here outside the US, so the title does not match the contents of the article. Presenting the US as the entirety of the area affected by Sandy is misleading. (or this article is missing a {{POV}} notice) --
65.92.181.190 (
talk)
17:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Can you name any other area outside the United States where Hurricane Sandy had a political impact? If not, then there is no POV issue. ~
Amatulić (
talk)
23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)reply
I would agree that if the hurricane had no impact on the politics of any other country there is no need to add United States regardless or whether or not other countries were in the path of the storm. Also due to these factors I don't see a case for bias. Even if there was evidence that the politics of other countries were significantly effected the way to deal with that would be to expand the article to include the other countries and even in that case there would be no reason for a name change.--
174.93.171.10 (
talk)
02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
In Jamaica, winds left 70% of residents without electricity, blew roofs off buildings, killed one, and caused about $55.23 million (2012 USD) in damage.
In Haiti, Sandy's outer bands brought flooding that killed at least 52, caused food shortages, and left about 200,000 homeless.
In the Dominican Republic, two died.
In Puerto Rico, one man was swept away by a swollen river.
In Cuba, there was extensive coastal flooding and wind damage inland, destroying some 15,000 homes, killing 11, and causing $2 billion (2012 USD) in damage.
In The Bahamas, two died amid an estimated $300 million (2012 USD) in damage.
It's pretty obvious that there will be political impact in these little countries, but because America is more important, and editors from these islands are busy looking for post-hurricane clean drinking water rather than editing wikipedia, wp isn't picking it up.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
05:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
You don't need a crystal ball to look outside the USA.
So where in this articles does this go
Haiti: State of emergency declared following hurricane Sandy 3 days ago – Haitian government declares state of emergency following hurricane Sandy; fears for worsening political unrest; Haitian police arrest 9...
Oppose I see no reason that this page should be restricted to the United States. Political impact on Haiti, Bahamas, etc. can be included here too. Or is every state going to now have a separate political impact page?
Walrasiad (
talk)
09:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, in the section above the requested move, it's claimed that the US is the only impacted place that should be documented in this article, so the POV tag ({{globalize}}) was removed for that reason. If that's the case, then the article is misnamed. If that isn't the case, then the tag should not have been removed, since there was political impact elsewhere. --
65.92.181.190 (
talk)
09:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
That comment you referenced is a red herring. It was based on there being no impact, but if sources say there was an impact, it should be added here. Hot Stop(Edits)13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose, disambiguation is not needed. Per
WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". More importantly, nothing speaks against expanding the article scope to include international political impact. --
87.79.105.235 (
talk)
11:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Hi, no, actually I didn't know, I should have realised it contains too much common sense to have entered canon as a guideline. :( Anyway, have you decided which you want, Haiti ahead of US in the lede, or US in the title?
In ictu oculi (
talk)
13:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeWP:SOFIXIT. The proposed title would be appropriate for a split, but right now, it would only limit this article. If you want to fight systemic bias, increase coverage of less covered topics—don't straitjacket existing articles to prevent such inclusion. --
BDD (
talk)
19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
In view of the topical nature of this article both the 2 options (1) the globalize tag, and (2) an article-side move tag to limit to US , should be added to the article-side header until it is decided whether to (1) include political impact in Haiti or (2) limit to US.
In ictu oculi (
talk)
12:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Changed section title from "Global warming" to "Climate change"
I changed the title of this section to be consistent with its text.
The two politicians who signed the letter may be using the words "climate change" in the sense of
global warming rather than
climate change. I'll leave it up to more meteorologically and politically experienced editors than me to decide if this is the case. If it is, then the section should be renamed and the content re-written so that it's clear what the political impact of Hurricane Sandy really is.
A reminder to new editors: Articles surrounding climate change, global warming, and the like are contentious and are heavily monitored. New editors are encouraged to read the talk pages of both articles, particularly the section at the very top that mentions "Wikipedia general sanctions," before making significant edits regarding these topics. The same caution should be taken with the Global warming/Climate change section of this article.
davidwr/(
talk)/(
contribs)/(
e-mail)
02:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)reply