Talk:Gale of January 1976

Units
The units in this article are a real dogs dinner. For speed we have m/s, mph, km/h, kn; for money we have €, £, pounds, $, USD, $USD (!), and 1976 USD or 2008 USD, plus other formats. (Why does an article about Europe quote costs in dollars?) Could someone who knows about Wikipedia policy please advise on how to impose some standardisation? PhilUK (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to deal with a real dogs dinner of sources, as there is no central authority who provides information on such storms (unlike our tropical friends). which currency is the best, Franc, Deutsch mark or GBP Pound? Euro would be problematic, surely.Lacunae (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive the page.
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ialRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=i20DAAAAIBAJ&dq=destruction&pg=2859%2C534660

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Trouble archiving links on the article
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
 * http://www.springerlink.com/content/hq22p2705752t553/
 * http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0493%281976%29104%3C0325%3AAWMAMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=P4n1z9rOh5MC&pg=PA31
 * http://www.thisisgrimsby.co.uk/Furious-storms-punch-resort-s-defences/story-11527454-detail/story.html
 * http://books.google.com/?id=pOJk9qdxTw4C&pg=PA527&lpg=PA527&dq=cleethorpes+flood+sea+1976#v=onepage&q=cleethorpes%20flood%20sea%201976&f=false
 * http://ringwaypublications.com/photo-gallery-1/gale-damage-08-01-1976/
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cUVQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_FcDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6052%2C430333
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=rrBPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gwUEAAAAIBAJ&dq=england&pg=5023%2C427746
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qq4vAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6KEFAAAAIBAJ&dq=gales&pg=3820%2C711270
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A0o1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=3X0FAAAAIBAJ&dq=destruction&pg=1334%2C653772
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=j0RYAAAAIBAJ&sjid=9j0NAAAAIBAJ&dq=gales&pg=1422%2C331184
 * http://www.stichtingbonifatiustoren.nl/herbouw_spits.html
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=45xIAAAAIBAJ&sjid=doQMAAAAIBAJ&dq=gales&pg=2079%2C576248
 * http://beeldbank.nationaalarchief.nl/afbeeldingen/trefwoord/Geografisch_trefwoord/%5C%27s%7EGravenzande/trefwoord/Webwinkel/Onbestelbaar?lang=n
 * http://bureau-wijsmuller.nl/?O-S:Stentor_II:Verhalen
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0gUvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=QTMDAAAAIBAJ&dq=gale&pg=3758%2C160779
 * http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=fwpPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SgIEAAAAIBAJ&dq=kiel%20canal&pg=6465%2C778569
 * http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?678
 * http://www.wrecksite.eu/wreck.aspx?88621
 * http://www.gogkbr.be/index.php?page=overstroming-76&hl=en_US
 * http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist/RTV/1976/01/08/BGY509300298/?s=*
 * http://journals.tdl.org/ICCE/article/viewFile/5860/5528
 * https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:_gCHAPKKJvMJ:www.icevirtuallibrary.com/deliver/fulltext/ndpvc.19362.0041.pdf?itemId%3D/content/chapter/ndpvc.19362.0041%26mimeType%3Dpdf+storm+january+1976+uk&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESiDLtBQy0ZsUsNoYl8HzaI_hgKhiJI4q5sFSfJZzmjd2om9y_wD3ZNGXCDXzZHAaZVT9_w21FY90oQD7dssJYCrzDm7gdcBKEEPkn8PFuLcyfI4PsRfMl687fwDLd_u4ZXcs4bX&sig=AHIEtbSy3rq_tb0bKaJrSORxBf-SUcIqog

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Rationale behind use of Executive Intelligence Review (LaRouche) as source

 * 1. Better source needed, as labelled.
 * 2. Selected info used from this controversial source, can and should be able to be properly referenced from non-controversial sources.
 * 3. Claims made are more or less supported by the other sources - it seems there were issues in the warnings given.
 * 4. The claims used (ie the voice of Wikipedia) is/are not supporting conspiracy theories in regards to this storm, but things which users may be able to help properly reference.
 * 5. Removal of the source replaced with citation needed tag, removes the source and controversial nature, which should be maintained.
 * 6. Removal of the material entirely makes it much more unlikely for a better source to be found, which I think in this case makes Wikipedia worse.
 * 7. The better citation needed tag exists for a reason, I think this is an appropriate case.Lacunae (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * No, sorry, the burden is on you to come up with an actual reliable source. Material cited to bad sources is often removed, as it should be, not merely tagged. If this information is legitimate, it should be easy to source it to a legitimate source. Executive Intelligence Review is a fringe LaRouche movement source, and the particular article here claims "NATO-coordinated weather modification" & promotes weird Rockefeller conspiracy theories. Given that, how is anything in the remainder of the article trustworthy? I am posting at WP:RSN to get further views. Neutralitytalk 02:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Larouche definitely isn't a reliable source for any of this information, I doubt much of this could be verified, and if verifiable, I doubt any of it would be considered WP:DUE for inclusion. Leaving the information in place with a tag is probably not justified here, because it seems to imply - without good evidence - that multiple weather services concealed information. [[User:Nblund|Nblund ]]talk 02:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * LaRouche publications might be called anti-reliable source: anything one of them asserts is almost certainly false. What little they say that isn't outright nonsense will be easily found in legitimate not-crazy sources. EEng 03:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What he said. In fact, I'd say that you shouldn't even be using LaRouche as a starting point for finding other legitimate sources, since doing so would be, in effect, laundering sources for LaRouche's wacky claims. --Calton| Talk 23:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Wacky? You call accusing the Queen of drug trafficking, and seeing musical pitch as related to a cosmic conspiracy wacky? Donald Trump is president, remember, so you need to recalibrate. EEng 23:33, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. It's not even noon here and now I already need a stiff drink. --Calton| Talk 02:04, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with Calton, EEng and Nblund - the facts should just be removed, not given a cn tag. If someone finds a reliable source saying these things, and they can be said without WP:SYN, they can be added in later with good sourcing. It's silly to send people scouting for good sources for stuff claimed by these fringe disinfo merchants. BobFromBrockley (talk) 10:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * As we appear to have descended into mockery, I see no reason to bother wasting my time going into why I think this fits WP:IAR.Lacunae (talk) 14:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Mockery is often a highly effective way of driving home the truth, and it seems to have done its job well in this case. EEng</b> 14:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)