Talk:2016 European floods

Climate change in lede
Added a dubious tag, as this doesn't seem to come from scientists (Francois Holland isn't one). The other sources appear to be news rather than peer reviewed scientific publications.Lacunae (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure if due - these are all reliable sources (usually they don't get "dubious" tags) even though it's not directly coming from the scientists themselves but news agencies that spoke with scientists. Of those one is named: Gerald Meehl. Maybe there are more appropriate references for it including some coming directly from some scientists? I'd suggest removing that tag again.
 * Now I'm not sure if you even read the articles.
 * --Fixuture (talk) 21:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the sources are reliable and what they say it is very probable, but as long as there is no final proof (and I have seen none) that the 2016 European floods are directly connected to climate change, the statements of the scientists should be put in the "Reactions" section. In addition, the scientists who say that should be clearly named, because there are maybe scientists who claim different things.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe the sources are reliable and what they say it is very probable, but as long as there is no final proof (and I have seen none) that the 2016 European floods are directly connected to climate change, the statements of the scientists should be put in the "Reactions" section. In addition, the scientists who say that should be clearly named, because there are maybe scientists who claim different things.--Gerry1214 (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I put it in the lede not because it is proven but because of its high relevance to the topic and interest of the public. I'd say it belongs to both the lede (summarized) and the reactions section (with more detail) - however I don't think that there's enough material for that in this case. --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it in the lede not because it is proven but because of its high relevance to the topic and interest of the public. I'd say it belongs to both the lede (summarized) and the reactions section (with more detail) - however I don't think that there's enough material for that in this case. --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I put it in the lede not because it is proven but because of its high relevance to the topic and interest of the public. I'd say it belongs to both the lede (summarized) and the reactions section (with more detail) - however I don't think that there's enough material for that in this case. --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * So far the only analysis which isn't conjecture is the one by World Weather Attribution and I find that even somewhat problematic, in that they're using the 1960-2015 trend, which is a known "flood poor" time period, trending into what may be now a more "flood rich" period for Western Europe. The reason for flagging the section of the lede with dubious is not one of the quality of the sources used, it is one of confusing conjecture by scientists, with science and attribution of climate change to weather events.Lacunae (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Framing conjecture by scientists as fact, combined with with a somewhat false synthesis of what was actually said isn't on, while there is space for discussion of the Polar amplification and jet stream being stuck hypothesis and/or jet stream resonance, so far it needs to be presented as a hypothesis rather than fact.Lacunae (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The former content was not intended to frame it as fact. I agree that it wasn't made clear enough that this is just speculation. What do you think about this formulation?:
 * Also I'd like to know what part of the article you'd find most appropriate for this info: the lede, the reactions section, a new section (e.g. called "causes", "relation to climate change" or alike), or multiple?
 * Btw there are multiple new reports on the connection by now; here's 3 of them:, ,
 * --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * --Fixuture (talk) 19:48, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * First, those three "new" reports are all based upon the World Weather Attribution work I linked to above, Second, the new formulation you propose is rather generic, rather than specific to this event. Third, I think the lede is inappropriate, the proposal is so far probably not nuanced or detailed enough to stand as a section on its own, so reactions probably fits best. Though while it is a peer reviewed (I think) or academic treatise, I think we can only provide an accurate assessment of its veracity when other academics have weighed in, otherwise I think given the trend of page editing on Wikipedia we run the risk of incorporating NPOV depending on the swiftness of publication. As an aside I highly recommend the type of language the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology were using surrounding the UK winter flooding of 2015/16.Lacunae (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposed removal of United Kingdom material
While this section documents some episodes of flash flooding, which is not unusual, I don't think these instances are notable or directly attributable to the conditions which caused the European flooding in late May/early June.Lacunae (talk) 09:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In my understanding it is connected to the prevailing weather conditions in Europe at present. But surely the article needs far more meteorological input to harden this connection. I'm going to add more uncommon phenomenons, e.g. tornados in Hamburg and Schleswig-Holstein.--Gerry1214 (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

sloppy referencing
Almost none of the sources contain date of publication, an essential piece of a reference, unlike the retrieval date. Why?--Wuerzele (talk) 12:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * you must have not understood what the problem is.date of publication is essential for news. Refill doesnt cut it.--Wuerzele (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)