This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Seriously, what do you find wrong with the following? The sources are reputable and varied and include *primary* sources, the quotes are balanced by both male/female and right/left. No one has pointed out any inaccuracies. That isn't partial. If there is some other problem the way to "correct" it isn't through a revert war, it's via the edit function. 67.177.112.196 ( talk) 03:52, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

BTW - I was told that this addition constituted "vandalism" by Biografer. If anyone can justify that I'd like to see it. Otherwise, after a reasonable amount of time awaiting comment and justification I'm going to assume no one objects and post this again. 67.177.112.196 ( talk) 06:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There are several problems with your addition:

1. A record must be for a well-defined metric of some sort. "Specific storm relief package" does not make that cut, and also, hurricanes that struck the country long before the current appropriation process did not necessarily even get emergency funding bills. Many low-impact storms (like Tropical Storm Emily (2017)) don't get it at all. The bill in question isn't even limited to just Michael.
2. A counterpoint to Pelosi's position, but not Dunn's, is provided. The amount of coverage of critical views is not WP:DUE weight based on all reliable sources. The same section on Maria is more compliant and includes rebuttals from the Trump administration, without a "yet ..." or other counterpoint that would imply in Wikipedia's voice that those arguments are not credible at all.
3. The tone of your addition is sensational (especially the last sentence of the first paragraph) and unencyclopedic. Please read WP:TONE.
4. "Victims of Hurricane Michael, a more powerful storm, have gotten nothing". First, this is misleading: Maria may have had lower maximum sustained winds but its wind field was broader and likely had more total kinetic energy in its moving air. Second, FEMA did intervene at first and that can be argued to be more than nothing. This is definitely non-neutral even if it has some truth to it.
5. Hurricane Sandy was not Category 1 at landfall; it was an extratropical cyclone, to which the Saffir-Simpson scale does not even apply.
6. In general, see WP:CRITICISM.

These aren't all the concerns in question.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 07:02, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

A very big concern is also synthesizing the references. – The Grid ( talk) 17:09, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

To answer the IP's objections which I removed for being placed inside my own comments:

1. "days since landfall" may be well-defined, but not "specific storm relief bill". And you did not qualify the record (and the source didn't qualify the record) by storm intensity or impact so low-impact and old storms are both fair game. By that logic, the record should go to the earliest low-impact tropical cyclone to hit the country since an emergency funding bill wasn't passed for it to this day.
2. If you want to view it this way, then Dunn's argument and the Maria bill are two points of arguments versus the one of Pelosi's. Either way you interpret it, your content is not compliant with WP:DUE.
3. Even without "record" your content remains highly sensational. "Dubious honor" is another of just many examples of sensational wording in your addition.
4. Something is more than nothing. Your argument that that amounts to "nothing" is your own opinion and not supported by reliable sources, and again does not give WP:DUE weight. Regarding your wind speed argument: Wrong. First, the power of the wind force is proportional to the cube of wind speed. It's the force itself that is proportional to the square of it. And in any case, this is only valid pointwise. The total force exerted by the wind on the ground surface as well as the total kinetic energy is actually a multiple integral of some sort, taken over the whole storm (see [1]), and thus determined by the whole wind field, not just the point maximum. Therefore, the "power" of a storm is not unambiguously reflected by the point maximum of wind. A single EF5 tornado does far less damage than a large Category 5-equivalent tropical cyclone despite having higher point maxima, since the area affected is much larger. Katrina, which made landfall at "only" Category 3 intensity, was far more devastating (by every metric) than Michael for similar reasons. Finally, perhaps most relevantly, the SSHWS category of a storm at landfall does not somehow imply that it should receive funding any faster, which is implied by the wording you chose.
5. But that is not stated by the source. Considering how ill-defined this record is (see above), your argument is entirely invalid, and at the very minimum, once again, not a fair reflection of what reliable sources have reported.
6. You are attempting a fallicious tu quoque argument here and show no evidence of having actually read what I've linked. I linked it for a reason: it explains more clearly than what I could write here what you should do (instead of what you should not).
7. Finally, you completely ignored the problem that you are synthesizing multiple sources to say something not said by any one of them. For example, I could reword the sentence on Pelosi as "Pelosi has opposed the bill on the grounds that it does not do enough for Hurricane Maria victims, who received just $18.62 billion in the days following landfall", to imply the opposite impression of Pelosi's argument.

@ The Grid: in case you have anything to add.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 06:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The number of days following an event *is* a well defined metric. I've cited no bills, nor do I plan to. I'm not campaigning for or against any specific bill as you seem to be. Low impact storms aren't category 5 Hurricanes.

Pelosi's position is a counterpoint to Dunn's inasmuch as you can trust her intermediaries. She hasn't commented on her own insouciance but the comments of her intermediaries are the best source available. The word "yet" would have been removed if the article was not now being censored.

In the spirit of compromise, I would have removed the word "record" if the article were not being censored yet this truly is one as days are a clearly definable metric.

Unlike with storms Maria and Andrew, FEMA has done nothing more than their normal operating pudget allows for any midwaest tornado or flood - temporary shelter in trailers for approximately 200. This benefit has now largely expired.[ https://www.wtsp.com/article/weather/hurricane-michael-survivors-facing-eviction-as-fema-housing-vouchers-end/67-68ae45c0-0795-458f-843f-9b3174b42649

The National Hurricane Center recognizes the Safir-Simpson scale as a measure of storm strength. As power increases with the *square* of wind speed it is a far greater factor than windfield diameter.

WRT Hurrican Sandy not being a Hurricane at landfall - agreed. But this further makes the point that Hurricane Michael has received undue delay. The text is now modified to: This exceeds the previous longest delay, Hurricane Andrew's, just 34 days by a factor of at least 5.9.

WRT In general, see WP:CRITICISM, In general, see WP:REVERTING When to revert or more directly WP:QUO in this section you will see: “Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits.” - The edit was clearly neither disruptive nor vandalism.

”The Wikipedia edit warring policy forbids repetitive reverting. “ – Yet this was done to my edit nomatter how many times I revised it incorporating the reverer’s objection

”If you see a good-faith edit which you feel does not improve the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of reverting it.” – IOW it was the reverter’s responsibility to revise the addition to their own taste not mine, but I tried to accommodate them anyhow.

”Similarly, if you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, or try an alternative way to make the change that includes feedback from the other editor.” – This is precisely what I did yet they continued their edit warring.

”If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page” - This is precisely what I did, but before any discussion occurred the edit warriors had my addition censored by requesting a lock on the article in violation of WP’s prohibition against stonewalling. See WP:Stonewalling.

”It is not appropriate to use reversion to control the content of an article through status quo stonewalling.” – This is exactly what the edit warriors did. 67.177.112.196 ( talk) 00:05, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Noting that my comment above is a reply to that. Some additions:

1. Not a single editor but the IP has reverted repeatedly. The IP is incorrect in their assertion that they did not revert a single time, since reintroducing material removed by others, even in revised form, constitutes undoing of the action of removing the material.
2. The IP has yet to actually read the policy pages I linked above or otherwise make a convincing argument to put the material in.
3. The IP's arguments, even though slightly edited, are still mostly in the form of tu quoque or other red herrings, and are therefore invalid.
4. I will not continue replying to the IP if they are not willing to stop casting aspersions of "tag teaming" or socking.-- Jasper Deng (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the main issues are mostly problems with tone and synthesis to frame a conclusion that is not stated by the sources. Various pieces of information are stitched together to suggest a pointed conclusion that isn't conveyed in the sources themselves. However, there is legitimate, well-sourced and verifiable information contained in the content added and that should be presented at face value. TheAustinMan^{( Talk· Works)} 02:26, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Namely, the Florida cabinet's comments and Neal Dunn's remarks are verifiable and sourced critiques by public officials, and could be grouped in a section or paragraph focused on criticisms of government response. Schultz's remarks are verifiable and would fall in a government response section or part of the article as well. Outside of that, the remaining tidbits are either unsourced or are relevant only because they help frame an argument—remember, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with a conclusion, information added to the article should be important because they are directly related to the article's subject, and shouldn't exist only to forward some point. TheAustinMan^{( Talk· Works)} 02:41, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The IP address argument to not revert edits is superseded with WP:BRD - we're discussing the edits now instead of engaging in an edit war which is a benefit. It's a moot point to present WP:REVERTING when it seems the IP is trying to make a point or much less cause disruption. I want to assume good faith but I'm not seeing any sign of competence. – The Grid ( talk) 14:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aftermath of Michael in Mexico Beach, Florida.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)