Talk:Hurricane Dorian/Archive 2

Bahamas fatalities
Someone on Reddit reported seeing someone on TV claiming to have heard someone say there have been 50+ fatalities in Bahamas. FYI. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * According to the tribune ~ ~ 5 as of 5.35pm ~mitch~ (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, the confirmed number is older and lower. I posted an unconfirmed number as a heads up for what might be coming. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * So far,I only heard of six fatalities,in Puerto Rico and thd Bahamas
 * We need to wait until reputable sources come out and specifically state that "X amount of people died." We cannot trust Reddit sources as they can be factually unsound. Jayab314  02:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

From this local news report on 9/9:
 * "Observers on the ground are now telling Bahamas Press that over 3,000 residents on Grand Bahama and Abaco could be confirmed dead in the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian."

This certainly isn't a reliable estimate, coming from unnamed sources to an unnamed reporter for a non-notable news service. Still, it will be interesting to see if mainstream organizations start talking about fatalities in the hundreds, or even thousands. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019
Additionally, Hurricane Dorian is one of the stillest hurricanes, and people are bracing for impact for nothing as it weakens. I think that should added because it is very important information as it is barely moving and should be covered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 01:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌: This statement does not have a source and is not factually sound. It is already mentioned in the article that Dorian is practically stationary and is not moving. Jayab314  02:14, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Jayab314,now it says it is not nearly stationary,and is in fact moving at 2 kilometers an hour can you add it in now — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

MH Article
If anyone would be interested, this storm will need a MH article due to its extreme complexity and its longevity (given it lasts a few more days). There will definitely be enough content for a separate article. Noah Talk 03:19, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be interested,include the stillness — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 11:45, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as it made landfall on Mainland US and is also expected to make landfall as a hurricane on Canada, I would be open to an MH article. Jayab314  01:38, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We already made the article. Noah Talk 02:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * oh my b. Jayab314  02:19, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of National Data Buoy Center and Other Land Based Observations
The NDBC station Settlement Point GBI reported maximum sustained wind of 54 knots during the entire stationary period over GBI:

https://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=spgf1

I was unable to locate other wind speeds. The comparison of modern hurricane strengths based on aircraft measurements with estimated wind speeds of earlier times is problematic. At a minimum, the inclusion of land based measurements is important.

The following text is a proposal:

The National Data Buoy Center reported maximum wind speed of 54 knots during the period when Dorian remained stationary over GBI.

JAQUINO (talk) 12:55, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

What is that in mph or kph? ImtheOneKhaled (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * 54 kn – The Grid  ( talk )  15:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

The values I cited were reported in knots. 1 knot is equal to about 1.15 mph. JAQUINO (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019
The last sentence of the meteorological history section needs to updated, as Dorian has been downgraded to a Category 2. It doesn't say this anywhere under the "current storm information" subsection. 2601:640:8880:3304:BC56:10E7:849A:13E3 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * It could be updated before the next update at 2pm(posted 1:13pm Eastern Time) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImtheOneKhaled (talk • contribs) 17:13, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅. Thank you. —  Wylie pedia  @ 17:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2019
The title of the page, "Hurricane Dorian" should have a (2019) to the right of the name of it. Eradian (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌: Hurricane Dorian does not need the disambiguating title of "(2019)" since there has never been another Hurricane Dorian. Unless there is another Hurricane Dorian in the future (which is unlikely due to the name probably being retired), then the "(2019)" would be added to the title. Jayab314  22:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In all likelihood, the name Dorian is getting retired, which would give it the primary title anyway even if there was another Hurricane Dorian. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. as Crazy said, it probably wouldn't get (2019) next to it because this is probably going to be the worst one, and that is because people would most likely be looking for this one, unless another Hurricane Dorian with more effects came along. DerpieDerpie D

20:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There was no other Hurricane Dorian,but it should be added because of Tropical Storm Dorian
 * There is no Tropical Storm Dorian article, just a redirect to the season, so the disambiguating title of "(2019)" is uneeded. Most hurricane articles don't have their year so I don't see the need for this one to have one. Jayab314  01:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Move preparatory deaths to Preparations?
As of now, two mainlanders have fallen off ladders preparing for the wind. Hard to call this Impact, since the wind hadn't even shown up yet. I can't cut and paste, so would someone else? And yeah, I get how anticipating the wind is partly to blame, so perceptions of Dorian sort of psychologically affected those guys. But it's hard to accuse a natural disaster of using preemptive mind tricks, isn't it? InedibleHulk (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also a Puerto Rican "trying to clean drains in advance", if anyone's looking. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Sharpiegate" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sharpiegate. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Lmatt (talk) 13:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Annular characteristics
Currently, there is mention in the article of Dorian developing annular characteristics at landfall citing NHC discussion number 35, 11 PM Sunday September 1, which noted symmetry: "Satellite images show an [sic] symmetrical cyclone with a circular 10 n mi diameter eye and intense eyewall convection with lots of lightning being detected." However, this was noticed much earlier in discussion number 25, 11 PM Friday August 30, at the time of Dorian's initial rapid intensification to category 4 strength: "The eye has become very distinct and is surrounded by a very symmetric ring of deep convection." Unofficially, the hurricane's presentation remained symmetrical and highly stable on IR from the time of that discussion until the eyewall replacement cycle began Monday evening. The last mention of its symmetrical appearance was made in Advisory 37, 11 AM Monday September 2: "The hurricane remains quite symmetric and still exhibits a very well-defined eye, but there is somewhat less evidence of concentric eyewalls in Bahamas radar imagery."

My account, despite being very old, has not made enough edits to be auto-confirmed, and so I cannot edit the article myself. However, citing the advisories above, I would like to make the following edits:

After the sentence in the Meteorological History section: "Rapid intensification continued, and the storm eventually reached major hurricane status several hours later, on the same day." I would like to add the following sentence to the article: "Around this time, it was noted that Dorian had began developing annular characteristics, with a highly symmetrical region of deep convection surrounding its distinct eye."

I would like to replace the later sentence "Around that time, Dorian acquired annular characteristics, becoming highly symmetrical in appearance." with the sentence "Dorian continued to display annular characteristics, remaining highly symmetric around a distinct circular eye." or something of the like, that makes sense in context.

If someone could make these edits for me, I'd really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fintuition (talk • contribs) 20:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * To conclude annularity without the NHC explicitly labeling it as such is original research. In this case, you would be wrong because microwave imagery such as this shows it never quite lost its outer banding (significant banding remains to the north and south here), a prerequisite for annularity.--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Videos here
https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706886/coast-guard-conducts-hurricane-dorian-response-efforts

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/707156/coast-guard-continues-response-efforts-bahamas-due-hurricane-dorian

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/706619/coast-guard-responds-hurricane-dorian-bahamas

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Official landfall in US
Despite all of the news media saying that landfall occurred in the United States, I have not seen this reported by the NHC. Does the source used in this article say as much? I can not seem to find it. 20:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bollyjeff (talk • contribs)
 * Update - The source used in the lead says "...DORIAN STILL CAUSING LIFE-THREATENING STORM SURGE AND HURRICANE-FORCE WINDS...". This should be changed to the one cited by the CBS news article, which indeed says, "...DORIAN MAKES LANDFALL OVER CAPE HATTERAS..."    Bollyjeff  &#124;  talk  20:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It actually has not made landfall and is now between Cape Hatteras,NC and Nautucket,MA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see this special advisory. --A1Cafel (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Watches/Warnings table
I just wanted to let everyone know that I am working on a collapsible watches/warnings table to summarize all the changes. It should be done in the next couple of days. Noah Talk 03:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is that the table should be on a separate wiki page rather than this one. The Hurricane Dorian page is already excessive with the amount of information in it and that just adds to the clutter. Most people looking for general prep/impact/historical impacts of Dorian don't need the play by play of watches and warnings. INFOWeather (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * You do realize that the whole table can be collapsed in a single click, right? Noah Talk 03:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I hate to be a party pooper but keeping such a large, cumbersome table even in a separate article likely isn't useful. The multitude of watches/warnings are only of interest to an incredibly small number of readers and by and large is just overwhelming for most. The watches/warnings can be included in a very concise manner in prose, ex: "Hurricane/tropical storm watches and warnings were issued for East Coast of the United States from Florida to North Carolina, Massachusetts, and Maine." It gets the point across that the advisories were issued, but avoids unnecessary detail that just bloats the article. I know other articles have these tables and some have the bloated paragraphs of specific warnings, but it's a trend that should be stopped and handled more appropriately. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:The NWS has declared Dorian a "hurricane-force post-tropical cyclone" and Wikipedia's policy is to follow NWS statements. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The exact request you asked for was not done, but the reference was changed to verify the two dead in NC. Jayab314  16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅: Thanks for pointing that out! Jayab314  17:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bahamas sub-article
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good this far. What do you think about the article KN and I made? Noah Talk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you update the “Dorian related” template? I’m on mobile. Noah Talk 15:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job on the MH article. Thanks to whoever added the Bahamas article to the related template! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

NOAA staff was warned against providing 'opinion' about Dorian after Trump comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/460401-noaa-staff-was-warned-against-providing-opinion-about-dorian-after

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was all set to enter something about that but held back since it would be my first edit here... Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - added  starship .paint  (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Quebec's Magdalen Islands (Iles-de-la-Madelaine in french) were heavily hit by Dorian on September 7-8
News Source (French):

News Source (English): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Dorian's relation to global warming
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally do not include this as it could be argued for every storm. In any case, please abide by the arb com rules on editing pages that may related to climate change. Noah Talk 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) Hey, someone else who thinks WP:ARBCC is our friend! Hooray, well met!  Question, do you have any reason to believe there is a problem here so far, or was this just a casual reminder? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This was just a general reminder to make everyone aware. People should know they may get sanctioned if they do something wrong. Noah Talk 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (B) Re your reasoning It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events.  That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research.  What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more  no less.  In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern.   Many sources comment on the climate connection.  "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters.   I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..."  If they say there's science at play, we should report it.  Period.  Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science.   But you have to start th discussion somewhere.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The "UN High Commissioner for Human Rights"? Where is the expertise I might ask. If you want to include more politics just say so and we'll leave the science out.--TMCk (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think someone who works on human rights is qualified to make a connection to climate change. Do they have credentials that argue otherwise? Do they have meteorologists or oceanographers making arguments? If not, this climate change argument is null and void. Keep in mind that this is the peak of the season and strong storms are bound to form. I would rather have scientists making these arguments than politicians. Noah Talk 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Some more possibilities to consider, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Time Zone Reference for Nova Scotia Landfall
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-Tropical and Extratropical Dates
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Either it is or isn't a tropical cyclone. Please note that Post-tropical cyclones are divided into two classes: Extratropical cyclones and remnant lows. Basically, the NHC called it an extratropical low and/or post-tropical because it no longer possessed enough tropical characteristics to retain its tropical cyclone status. Once it lost nearly all convection, it was fully extratropical. From the Canada landfall until the last advisory, it was more ET than tropical, but still retained a tiny fraction of convection. Hope that clears up the issue. Noah Talk 01:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for clarifying. In that case, shouldn't we really be saying in the info box that Dorian became post-tropical on 7 September, given that it was not fully extratropical yet? I don't think we can really say it was extratropical if in fact it wasn't fully extratropical. We could just ditch the mention of extratropicality from the info box entirely, and only refer to post-tropical to make it fully accurate. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue with this is that the NHC clearly said it was transitioning to extratropical and then declared it an extratropical low, meaning it was far enough along to be considered an extratropical cyclone. The same thing applies if a storm is transitioning and has lost some tropical characteristics. Is the system not a hurricane simply because it isn't fully tropical? This question is answered because the NHC continued to call it a hurricane instead of a subtropical storm whilst it was transitioning. In summary, a storm is either tropical, subtropical, or extratropical (given it isnt a remnant low). There is no such thing as in between statuses. Since the NHC didn't mention subtropical period, we have to call this extratropical. Noah Talk 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With few exceptions, tropical cyclones undergoing extratropical transition aren't considered to be subtropical along the way. Also, post-tropical is a strict superset of extratropical; it also includes tropical remnant lows that are disqualified from being tropical cyclones owing to lack of organized convection. That said, in the 59th discussion, NHC explicitly declared Dorian a "hurricane-force extratropical low". NHC is always explicit about things like this. If they said "remnant low", we would specify that. Notably, the operational best track has no subtropical points.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Massive reversion in lead
Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.

Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I, not him, was the one who reverted you. I didn't know I was reverting you but this is why I made those edits: we should organize the lead paragraphs not in strict chronological order, but by topic. The information on impacts should be in different paragraphs from the meteorological history. Remember, the lead summarizes the article and the article itself does not intermingle these sections. The reader will have a hard time understanding a "mixed" paragraph like you intended.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I'm a novice about hurricanes. I do think there's a lot of stuff on the meteorological history ('graph 2) as opposed to the preparations and impact ('graphs 3 and 4). It's like WP:WEIGHT but for summarizing in the lead.
 * But another point. The lead doesn't give any info about the impact on the Bahamas. One sentence says "Extensive precautionary measures were taken to mitigate damage, especially in Puerto Rico, where one person died." The next "Elsewhere in the Lesser Antilles, impacts from the storm were relatively minor." And then it switches to "In preparation for the storm, the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia all declared a state of emergency..."
 * Where's the impact on Grand Bahama and Abaco in the lead (except for the first paragraph)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant".  Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is  "extremely powerful".

Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.

This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

Oldag07 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We don't really use terms like  extremely powerful  .   G M G  talk  19:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your recommended "rewrite" is grammatically incorrect. That aside, it's not necessary to include the "since Hurricane Wilma" part, and strictly speaking it does not imply "extremely powerful" – a Category 3-equivalent South Atlantic tropical cyclone would be the strongest since Hurricane Catarina and yet would not be considered "extremely powerful". Katrina's lead sentence in fact should be revised to be similar to Dorian's current one (minus the "since..." and "destructive" parts). The one point I agree on is, "destructive" is indeed redundant. As someone who frequently removes weasel and peacock words, I oppose removing the other two descriptors. These descriptors aren't in any way conveyed by the title, and are stronger statements than "Category 5 hurricane" (compare Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Maria).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A few issues here, specifically on the "extremely powerful" bit. It's not clear what this even means. Is there a meteorological definition that separates really powerful from super powerful and extremely powerful? What source are we using for this? Finally, the only article you link to that says "extremely powerful" is Hurricane Irma, and you were the one who added the language there too. Besides that, "destructive" seems entirely redundant. Is there some category of major hurricanes that we consider non-destructive? It's a bit like saying a "destructive toddler". They're all destructive by their nature.
 * The entire thing comes off as entirely too colloquial, the way a teenage surfer would describe a hurricane to his "bros" and not the way an encyclopedia would explain it to readers. Simply saying it is a class five is objective and neutral. Readers who want to know more about the classification system can find out on the main article, and they can decide for themsleves if that's "extremely powerful" or "totally tubular" or whatever colorful language they would like to use to talk about the subject with their "bros".  G M G  talk  10:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we change this page, do we change Hurricane Irma's lead as well? Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic. "Extremely powerful" is generally used for tropical cyclones with intensities of at least 155 knots, and which have set some sort of intensity record. It is also simply wrong that major hurricanes are necessarily destructive; the great majority of Pacific hurricanes do not affect land. I removed "destructive" already as it is redundant in this particular case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic. Yes, that is my point exactly.  G M G  talk  17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oldag07. To get over the grammatical difficulties, how about:
 * Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and . Dorian was the strongest in the Caribbean basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
 * Also, I don't think we need quite as much information now on the weather history in the lead. These were important while we were serving as a news article. But now that we're transitioning to be more encyclopedic (see WP:10YT), the particular meteorological events are less important. In my opinion, the majority of the readers, say, six months in the future, will be more interested in the impact and aftermath of Dorian rather than what the weather was doing on a particular day.
 * That's not to say that we shouldn't give all of the meteorological details in the body of the article (and the sub-article). But we should trim down the lead for our new audience.
 * In addition, I think that Dorian's maximum sustained wind speed at landfall (which tied the all-time record with the "Labor Day" hurricane of 1935) is more important than Wilma in 2005. Perhaps something like this:
 * Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. Dorian tied with the "Labor Day" hurricane of 1935 for the maximum sustained wind speed at landfall ever recorded.
 * Maybe the second sentence should go at the end of the first paragraph, after the 70,000 left homeless. Or it could be tossed out of the lead entirely. Remember, anything we toss out is always in the body of the article somewhere. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Extremely powerful" has other precedent for storms of similar intensity, and is a better descriptor than just "Category 5" (which, by the way, should be capitalized). At the very least, storms that set significant intensity records (Dorian is the strongest Bahamas hurricane when they receive major hurricane impacts fairly often) merit it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would strengthen your argument if you had a source. Oldag07 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? NHC explicitly declared Dorian to be such in the 33rd advisory's discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what the "33rd advisory's discussion" is. Can you give me a link? So far your argument against the term "category 5" is the fact that it is "bland" (according to your revert summary) and that "extremely powerful" is a "stronger statement" compared to "category 5". Wikipedia isn't about flowery language. Its overriding goal is to have a WP:NPOV and to seem WP:IMPARTIAL. Oldag07 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NHC's 33rd discussion. The agency regularly refers to systems as "catastrophic Hurricane [ name ]" and "extremely powerful Hurricane [ name ]. I personally prefer avoiding the flowery wording in the opening sentence, but those descriptors have been used in official products. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By "stronger statement", I mean that in the precise and rigorous sense in which mathematicians use that phrase. "A is divisible by 10" is a stronger statement than "A is divisible by 5".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but there seems to be a majority of people on this page who support changing the lead. I will change the sentence RoyGoldsmith's adding the term "extremely powerful as a form of compromise with Jasper Deng.  The term Category 5 seems very common amongst hurricane article lead sentences, and I see no reason why this page should be any different.  I certainly am willing to continue discussions here, but the lead sentence is a bit of a run on and it personally is a bit bothersome. Oldag07 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Category 5" is necessary in the first sentence. The lead should be a succinct introduction of the subject to the reader. This is like saying "54 is a number divisible by 6 divisible by 3". The "divisible by 3" is plainly redundant and conveys no new information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or we can go with the majority opinion and just get rid of "extremely powerful". Oldag07 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is absolutely not okay with me. If you want to compromise, I suggest you instead keep it the way I had it – it being a Category 5 hurricane is plain from the infobox and therefore redundant in that sense as well. You said you didn't want redundancy, so don't include something that's redundant to the infobox. There are plenty of tropical cyclone articles using this nomenclature. The lead sentence is not a run-on sentence and is an accurate reflection of sources, so with "destructive" removed, there's nothing more to be done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your rewrite is worse than either version suggested here in my opinion. "extreme and catastrophic" is both redundant and vague ("extreme" has to be qualified by metric: Dorian most likely isn't the deadliest Bahamian hurricane on record, as deadly as it likely will end up being, while "catastrophic" is also redundant to the rest of the lead paragraph). Remember, the Bahamas at the time of the 1932 Bahamas hurricane had none of the modern building codes or warning systems of today.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a certain unanimity for its title as the worst natural disaster, as well as one of the deadliest, in addition to it obviously being the costliest one. Costliest, deadliest, worst, most catastrophic, most intense at landfall... take your pick. But this needs to be represented with due weight in the lead—and preferably in a manner that does not exhaust the reader before they've parsed the first clause. Mentioning the impact for the Eastern Seaboard in the same sentence (which, relative to essentially any other storm that has impacted the US in recent times, hardly qualifies as "significant") just reads as a forced and borderline dismissive afterthought.


 * May I suggest "Hurricane Dorian was the most powerful tropical cyclone on record to strike the Bahamas, and is regarded as the worst natural disaster in the country." The opening sentence must both captivate and succinctly inform our readers of the subject matter; it need not contain a discombobulated summary of statistical facts and scientific records, but should prioritize the ones that are most historic, memorable and encyclopedic. Auree <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★  ★  05:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the US in the opening sentence is, IMO, US-centric bias. As Auree mentioned, the impacts there pale in comparison to the Bahamas. The opening paragraph initially put forth by Auree was not redundant, it was a clear statement followed by further details to back it up. If we go by your logic, saying something is "catastrophic" then describing the damage in the impact section is redundant. A plethora of reliable sources back up the extreme/catastrophic line and that's how we report the information. FWIW the death toll is well-above 50 with many bodies discovered/recovered in the ruins of The Mudd; however, the government simply hasn't released an update on the number. I'm all for the succinct lead sentence in the above section by Auree. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not having the US mentioned. With regard to "catastrophic", I am accepting the objections raised by the OP of this section about redundancy. I think Hylian's suggestion here doesn't have the redundancy/vagueness problems of the original rewrite. Actually, Hylian's revision (here, not what I reverted) seems to be better than either my version or the OP's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and rewrote the first paragraph per the above; feel free to point out where I'm off base. <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  06:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not against the new lead sentence, but the Bahamas is barely mentioned in the article. Moreover the phrase "worst natural disaster in the Bahamas' history" is begging for a source. It certainly doesn't have to be attached to the lead sentence, but it must be in the article, not just the talk page. I guess adding in information from the  Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas  into the body of the article would make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sub topic "Alabama controversy" should be removed.
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.'' ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Katrina communication and lack of communication hovers around actions which should have been taken and were not taken. (Also around the ability of people to evacuate without having cars, especially when some transportation facilities were closed prematurely.) Trump's tweet is on a different scale. It is also true that the tweet and subsequent controversy centres around Trump. The original tweet raised a ripple, the determination to double down is what is raising the wave. I won't pretend to guess whether that kind of coverage is sought for its own sake, whether it is just standard hitting back, or whether it is something else entirely. Nonetheless, reaction to that tweet exceeds standard gossip and/or "fake news shtick" because of two factors. First, under U.S. law, altering official government weather forecasts is illegal. There are some very solid life-saving reasons for that law. Second, there is a casualty cost associated with evacuation as well as with direct effects of the storm. Extremely few evacuations are carried out without at least a few people dying or suffering life-altering injury as a consequence of the evacuation. If a misleading statement at high level had led to unnecessary evacuation -- as might well have happened had the NWS not immediately countered the tweet -- it would also (with statistical certainty) have led to unnecessary deaths. While both aspects probably do belong on one of the Trump-related pages, they also have direct relevance to the preparation aspect of this particular hurricane, as well as to the reliability of future disaster-related statements from the same source. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * CCOS does not apply here. The governing policy is WP:DUE which means that since reliable sources have written about Sharpiegate, we should be covering it in proportion to that coverage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - CCOS is an essay, not policy. Exactly which of the sources are opinion pieces? Also, if someone did something which could be viewed as negative, reporting it is not singling them out. As an exmaple, are articles on mass shootings singling the suspects out?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "see also" to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Hurricane_Dorian soibangla (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two sides to this. One is that the sharpie was just to show where the hurricane could have gone, the NOAA is right, and therefore Trump was genuinely mistaken about Dorian's eventual path. The other side is that he purposely drew the line (or, at least, had it drawn by someone) to prove his point. As long as we give readers a chance to come to a conclusion, it ought to be fair and acceptable. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. The original NOAA map from that date is still readily visible online and it does not contain that mark. That was newly added to the map Trump showed on television. (We don't know who added it, but we do know who uses sharpies all the time.) Trump certainly was genuinely mistaken when he mentioned Alabama as one of the states that should prepare for a hurricane. An innocent mistake; he misremembered his briefing or something. If he had just let it go, there would be no controversy. It was his days-long insistence on trying to prove that he had been right that created the controversy. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Washington Post: Trump was the one who altered Dorian trajectory map with Sharpie soibangla (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a fart in the wind and has no lasting impact compared to the death and destruction that was caused by the hurricane in the Bahamas. It should be removed of course.--MONGO (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While not denigrating in the slightest what has happened in the Bahamas and to a lesser extent in Nova Scotia (and I trust you are donating to the appropriate aid agency), your comment strongly implies that seemingly minor political questions are completely unimportant in the larger scheme of things. This somehow reminds me of King George III's diary entry for July 4, 1776 - "Nothing important happened today." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing, particularly in relation to Trump, comes up all the time. I think people will forget it quickly in most circles. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that Dorian didn't cause many casualties in the United States unlike previous hurricanes, it's certainly possible that a significant part of its legacy in America would indeed be Sharpiegate.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly ridiculous that the "Sharpiegate" section of the article is larger than the entire article's section on the hurricane's effects on the mainland US. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, but the fact that it's covered in excruciating detail is definitely WP:UNDUE. The section should be 3 or 4 sentences, tops. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * US impacts are hardly fully known now and won’t be for some time. The answer is to expand the impacts section, not shrink the Sharpiegate section.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - (assuming this is for local consensus) - if Trump created the path upon which the hurricane traveled, that information would be worthy of inclusion. His miscalculation of it is not, especially considering the grand scheme of things. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 16:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what content policy says that “if Trump created the path upon which the hurricane traveled, that information would be worthy of inclusion”? Correct: there is none. This is highly documented in sources and is probably the most flagrant example ever of a politician altering a weather forecast so it is far beyond notable.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested this at the RfD for Sharpiegate, and people were against it. So I'll hold off, but just you wait: now that the cabinet is involved, this is going to blow up into a big ongoing story. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The real question is whether anything actually happens. If the only indicia of notability for a Trump controversy is that the media has gone histrionic once again, then it's not really encyclopedic. If it were a situation where, for example, a cabinet member stepped down or there was some tangible effect then that might be different. But the media flipping its lid for the millionth time without anything else happening is not really suitable for an encyclopedia. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  13:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be an investigation. It's not nothing. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with any hot-button political issue, but especially with anything that Trump says or does, is that the media whips into a frenzy and then editors cover the controversy in extreme detail, despite the fact that there is little (potentially zero) lasting consequence at all. This seems to be one of those times. The fact of the matter is that, right now, there has been no practical consequence for anyone as a result of "sharpiegate." Nobody has lost their jobs. There has, quite literally, been no effect on anyone. Maybe that would change in the future. Just because the acting chief is looking into it doesn't mean that it has lasting significance or anything would ever happen. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed; I think a couple sentences are appropriate. But definitely not an article or a massive section, as the Hurricane Dorian article has. Again, maybe that will change in the future. As of right now, though? The media has whipped up a tempest but it seems like it hasn't gone much further than the media. For now. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE.  There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest.  Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is pretty much true that up to now the issue has been propelled by the media, driven by Trump's repeatedly bringing the subject up and in particular by the altered map. But. BUT. The issue became much broader and more significant after NOAA issued a statement contradicting its own scientists in favor of Trump's version, and it was reported that NOAA had done so reluctantly on direct orders from the Commerce Secretary. At that point it was no longer just the media who cared about the issue. Strongly worded statements were made by the director of NWS and the head of the NWS employees' association, and investigations were launched by both the Commerce Department's inspector general and the NOAA chief scientist. What they are investigating, and what this story has now mushroomed into, is not the silly marked-up weather map. It's the evidence of direct political interference into what is supposed to be a science-based agency. That interference, and the strong reaction it is drawing from highly placed non-media people, is why this story is not going to go away. I do believe it will become an article of its own, sooner rather than later, and in fact I am drafting one. I believe it will be obvious very soon that one is needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now confirmed the order for NOAA to issue a statement backing up the president's version came directly from the White House. See why I say it needs an article of its own? Here's my draft about this issue, which is getting more significant every day. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you waiting for? NOAA was about the only one left that has not been too cozy with politicians and had a scandal of some sort or another, and then this happens... Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, for the RfD to close, for one thing. But a big advantage, and why I think people here might want to support a separate article: it means we could reduce the information at this article to a few sentences, with a "main article" link for the details. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt very much that any other WP hurricane article has such a large section discussing a political happening related to it.  I think it makes us look rather unprofessional.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I created the spinoff article. It is here: Hurricane Dorian-Alabama controversy. I will now trim out most of the Alabama section at this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove it all. This article should be about the hurricane and the destruction in the Bahamas in particular. In 5 years no one will give a hoot about this particular Trumpian sideshow....any "investigation" will lead to nothing.--MONGO (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a summary here, feeling it is needed. How do others feel? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your persistence! "Split & summarize" is certainly the right idea. The sub-article is indeed encyclopedic, and I think its lead paragraph alone might be enough of a summary for this main article. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's important to get in the third paragraph, about the political influence and the investigations. I suppose I could trim it a little more and just combine it so it makes one paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed a less essential incident. I think what we now have is the minimum: three short paragraphs covering the three important aspects of this thing, namely: his initial statement, the contradiction, and his insistence that he had been right; the altered map incident; and the political interference and resulting investigations. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody restored my "less essential" incident. OK. What we have is still the minimum needed to summarize the issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose the creation of a separate article for "Sharpiegate," and I think there should just be a paragraph or two about it here. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong remove and keep at most a factually written, non-tabloid-esque paragraph on the account. An encyclopedia is no place for cosmopolitan tabloid he-said/she-said politics that are mired in agenda and commercialism, especially not in an article on a major calamity. We are human beings writing human articles – let's have some humanity, shall we? <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌: If you are talking about the sentence Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314  19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now I see170.24.150.11 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

species went extinct
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that cites the evidence that the species were unlikely to survive? And why is this new topic at the top?  F B  708  11:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving new comment to bottom. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

oopsy47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine”47.16.99.72 (talk)
 * So I searched it up. And what the top results were was this page, this page, and many other ones related to it.  F B  708  12:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

New damage estimate
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Really depends on who gave the $7 billion value. If it was a Bahamas Govt. source, then the current value stays. If it is a not-govt source, change it. Anyways $3.4 billion seems too low as a toll, given Dorian stalled over Grand Bahama at C4/5 strength. I would like a toll as low as possible, but well, 7 billion seems like a more realistic figure, given what happened to the Abacos and Grand Bahama. --JavaHurricane (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bahamas Death Toll and Missing
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. . Cheers. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jayab  314  19:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you remove protection?
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? 'I remember ImTheOneKhaled'' being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane.47.16.99.72 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
 * This is not a place to discuss random facts that have nothing to do with the article. United States Man (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Retirement postponed + what it means
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was having the same OR thoughts while reading this before I got to the part where you mentioned it. I believe this would be considered speculation on our part, even if that speculation has plenty of ground to stand on. United States Man (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need to venture into OR territory. Just find a source saying the conference was postponed and add it to the article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2019
It says in the beginning that Hurricane Dorian is a post tropical cyclone.A CNN post at 5:22pm Eastern Time stated it is a category 2 hurricane and never went extratropical 67.81.198.147 (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done:The NWS has declared Dorian a "hurricane-force post-tropical cyclone" and Wikipedia's policy is to follow NWS statements. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:14, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019
In the lead: and the first major hurricane... 219.79.96.244 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done A1Cafel (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2019
In the "Deaths and damage" table, please reduce North Carolina fatalities from 2 to 1, and reduce the bottom-line Total by 1. The citation from the Associated Press mentions only 1 fatality in North Carolina, unless there's another reliable source that says otherwise. 173.68.139.31 (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The exact request you asked for was not done, but the reference was changed to verify the two dead in NC. Jayab314  16:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix. Given the updated reference, it probably also makes sense to update the lead sentence of the NC Impact section to something like: "Two fatalities occurred in North Carolina, when elderly men separately fell off ladders while preparing for the storm." – adding your new reference after the old one. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 17:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅: Thanks for pointing that out! Jayab314  17:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Bahamas sub-article
Given the incredible scope of damage in the Bahamas, I created a subarticle for effects there - Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks good this far. What do you think about the article KN and I made? <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you update the “Dorian related” template? I’m on mobile. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 15:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Good job on the MH article. Thanks to whoever added the Bahamas article to the related template! ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:18, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

NOAA staff was warned against providing 'opinion' about Dorian after Trump comments
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/460401-noaa-staff-was-warned-against-providing-opinion-about-dorian-after

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

Victor Grigas (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was all set to enter something about that but held back since it would be my first edit here... Gandydancer (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - added  starship .paint  (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Quebec's Magdalen Islands (Iles-de-la-Madelaine in french) were heavily hit by Dorian on September 7-8
News Source (French):

News Source (English): — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.96.251.18 (talk) 08:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Dorian's relation to global warming
Michelle Bachelet, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights speaking of Dorian said, “The storm accelerated with unprecedented speed over an ocean warmed by climate shifts, becoming one of the strongest Atlantic hurricanes ever to hit land,” Bachelet said. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * We generally do not include this as it could be argued for every storm. In any case, please abide by the arb com rules on editing pages that may related to climate change. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 20:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (A) Hey, someone else who thinks WP:ARBCC is our friend! Hooray, well met!  Question, do you have any reason to believe there is a problem here so far, or was this just a casual reminder? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This was just a general reminder to make everyone aware. People should know they may get sanctioned if they do something wrong. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * (B) Re your reasoning It could be argued for every storm, I know this has been the usual reply but I find it to be an interesting example of WP:No original research. Some Wikipedia editors, out of their own heads, have decided that because there might be a climate change signal in extreme weather events, coverage of what the WP:Reliable sources say about that signal is prohibited in articles about extreme weather events.  That's not really reporting based on reliable sources, that's filtering permissible and impermissible reliable source coverage based on editor's personal opinion about value and merit, i.e., Original Research.  What we are supposed to do is resport what the Reliable sources say, no more  no less.  In Dorian's case, many RSs report on the (A) above average heat content of the surface waters and (B) the stalling pattern.   Many sources comment on the climate connection.  "It might be argued...." well yeah, if some source is just belly scratching and speculating that's not the kind of "might be argued" that matters.   I don't get why Wikipedia editors are able to devalue the science writings of real scientists with a dismissive "it might be argued..."  If they say there's science at play, we should report it.  Period.  Granted the only source I've cited (so far) is not from a scientist or even directly about the science.   But you have to start th discussion somewhere.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:35, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * The "UN High Commissioner for Human Rights"? Where is the expertise I might ask. If you want to include more politics just say so and we'll leave the science out.--TMCk (talk) 21:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't think someone who works on human rights is qualified to make a connection to climate change. Do they have credentials that argue otherwise? Do they have meteorologists or oceanographers making arguments? If not, this climate change argument is null and void. Keep in mind that this is the peak of the season and strong storms are bound to form. I would rather have scientists making these arguments than politicians. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Some more possibilities to consider, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Time Zone Reference for Nova Scotia Landfall
The landfall times are listed in AST (Atlantic Standard Time) (UTC-4). However, the region currently observes Atlantic Daylight Time (UTC-3). US forecasts used AST for this region, which would be correct at that longitude in the Caribbean, which does not observe DST, but ceased to be the correct local time once the storm reached Canada. I'd suggest we change this so that the times listed reflect the actual local landfall and effect times. PhotoJim (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Post-Tropical and Extratropical Dates
The NHC discussions are contradictory in their classification of Dorian after it was no longer classified as a tropical cyclone. Although Discussion #59 mentions Dorian being an extratropical low, as mentioned in his edit summary, Discussions #60-#63 all refer to Dorian as post-tropical, not extratropical. Only in Discussion #64 does the NHC specify that, “Dorian has become fully extratropical”. Given this information, I believe the most correct information to include in the main info box is that Dorian became post-tropical on September 7 (as indicated in public advisories 59-63a, and discussions 60-63, as well as the bottom of #59), and extratropical on September 9 (as indicated specifically in the headline of public advisory #64, and as discussed in discussion #64). ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Either it is or isn't a tropical cyclone. Please note that Post-tropical cyclones are divided into two classes: Extratropical cyclones and remnant lows. Basically, the NHC called it an extratropical low and/or post-tropical because it no longer possessed enough tropical characteristics to retain its tropical cyclone status. Once it lost nearly all convection, it was fully extratropical. From the Canada landfall until the last advisory, it was more ET than tropical, but still retained a tiny fraction of convection. Hope that clears up the issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you for clarifying. In that case, shouldn't we really be saying in the info box that Dorian became post-tropical on 7 September, given that it was not fully extratropical yet? I don't think we can really say it was extratropical if in fact it wasn't fully extratropical. We could just ditch the mention of extratropicality from the info box entirely, and only refer to post-tropical to make it fully accurate. ChocolateTrain (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue with this is that the NHC clearly said it was transitioning to extratropical and then declared it an extratropical low, meaning it was far enough along to be considered an extratropical cyclone. The same thing applies if a storm is transitioning and has lost some tropical characteristics. Is the system not a hurricane simply because it isn't fully tropical? This question is answered because the NHC continued to call it a hurricane instead of a subtropical storm whilst it was transitioning. In summary, a storm is either tropical, subtropical, or extratropical (given it isnt a remnant low). There is no such thing as in between statuses. Since the NHC didn't mention subtropical period, we have to call this extratropical. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:44, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * With few exceptions, tropical cyclones undergoing extratropical transition aren't considered to be subtropical along the way. Also, post-tropical is a strict superset of extratropical; it also includes tropical remnant lows that are disqualified from being tropical cyclones owing to lack of organized convection. That said, in the 59th discussion, NHC explicitly declared Dorian a "hurricane-force extratropical low". NHC is always explicit about things like this. If they said "remnant low", we would specify that. Notably, the operational best track has no subtropical points.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Massive reversion in lead
Yesterday at 3:10 UTC, you reverted the edits I made 15 hours previously with the one-word edit summary "(Update)". My four edits (Sept 9 thru 12:41) didn't add or subtract anything but simply arranged the intro section into date-order paragraphs. See here.

Why did you do this? Do you have objections to my rearrangement? If so, it would've been polite to post a note here on the talk page. Or did you not realize you were reverting my edits. I don't want to get into an edit war over this. Could you please explain what you were doing? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I, not him, was the one who reverted you. I didn't know I was reverting you but this is why I made those edits: we should organize the lead paragraphs not in strict chronological order, but by topic. The information on impacts should be in different paragraphs from the meteorological history. Remember, the lead summarizes the article and the article itself does not intermingle these sections. The reader will have a hard time understanding a "mixed" paragraph like you intended.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fine; I'm a novice about hurricanes. I do think there's a lot of stuff on the meteorological history ('graph 2) as opposed to the preparations and impact ('graphs 3 and 4). It's like WP:WEIGHT but for summarizing in the lead.
 * But another point. The lead doesn't give any info about the impact on the Bahamas. One sentence says "Extensive precautionary measures were taken to mitigate damage, especially in Puerto Rico, where one person died." The next "Elsewhere in the Lesser Antilles, impacts from the storm were relatively minor." And then it switches to "In preparation for the storm, the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina and Virginia all declared a state of emergency..."
 * Where's the impact on Grand Bahama and Abaco in the lead (except for the first paragraph)? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
The current lead sentence is as follows: Hurricane Dorian was an extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

I personally find the sentence a bit long. I also find the terms "extremely powerful, long-lived, and destructive" a bit vague, bordering on weasel words. According to the manual of style, the lead sentence should "Keep redundancy to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information that is not already given by the title of the article. The title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead." Considering the fact that the sentence already says that it devastated the northern Bahamas, the Southeastern US and Canada, saying that the storm was "destructive" is redundant".  Moreover stating that "the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005." implies that the storm is  "extremely powerful".

Katrina's Lead sentence: Hurricane Katrina was a Category 5 hurricane that made landfall on Florida and Louisiana in August 2005, causing catastrophic damage, particularly in the city of New Orleans and the surrounding areas.

This is my recommended rewrite: Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and the strongest in the basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005. (Edited to correct grammar as suggested Oldag07 (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC))

Oldag07 (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. We don't really use terms like  extremely powerful  .   G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  19:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Your recommended "rewrite" is grammatically incorrect. That aside, it's not necessary to include the "since Hurricane Wilma" part, and strictly speaking it does not imply "extremely powerful" – a Category 3-equivalent South Atlantic tropical cyclone would be the strongest since Hurricane Catarina and yet would not be considered "extremely powerful". Katrina's lead sentence in fact should be revised to be similar to Dorian's current one (minus the "since..." and "destructive" parts). The one point I agree on is, "destructive" is indeed redundant. As someone who frequently removes weasel and peacock words, I oppose removing the other two descriptors. These descriptors aren't in any way conveyed by the title, and are stronger statements than "Category 5 hurricane" (compare Hurricane Michael, Hurricane Irma, and Hurricane Maria).--Jasper Deng (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * A few issues here, specifically on the "extremely powerful" bit. It's not clear what this even means. Is there a meteorological definition that separates really powerful from super powerful and extremely powerful? What source are we using for this? Finally, the only article you link to that says "extremely powerful" is Hurricane Irma, and you were the one who added the language there too. Besides that, "destructive" seems entirely redundant. Is there some category of major hurricanes that we consider non-destructive? It's a bit like saying a "destructive toddler". They're all destructive by their nature.
 * The entire thing comes off as entirely too colloquial, the way a teenage surfer would describe a hurricane to his "bros" and not the way an encyclopedia would explain it to readers. Simply saying it is a class five is objective and neutral. Readers who want to know more about the classification system can find out on the main article, and they can decide for themsleves if that's "extremely powerful" or "totally tubular" or whatever colorful language they would like to use to talk about the subject with their "bros".  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  10:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If we change this page, do we change Hurricane Irma's lead as well? Oldag07 (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic. "Extremely powerful" is generally used for tropical cyclones with intensities of at least 155 knots, and which have set some sort of intensity record. It is also simply wrong that major hurricanes are necessarily destructive; the great majority of Pacific hurricanes do not affect land. I removed "destructive" already as it is redundant in this particular case.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * GMG, we do not use "really powerful" or "super powerful" at all as they are considered unencyclopedic. Yes, that is my point exactly.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  17:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with Oldag07. To get over the grammatical difficulties, how about:
 * Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada, and . Dorian was the strongest in the Caribbean basin by wind speed since Hurricane Wilma in 2005.
 * Also, I don't think we need quite as much information now on the weather history in the lead. These were important while we were serving as a news article. But now that we're transitioning to be more encyclopedic (see WP:10YT), the particular meteorological events are less important. In my opinion, the majority of the readers, say, six months in the future, will be more interested in the impact and aftermath of Dorian rather than what the weather was doing on a particular day.
 * That's not to say that we shouldn't give all of the meteorological details in the body of the article (and the sub-article). But we should trim down the lead for our new audience.
 * In addition, I think that Dorian's maximum sustained wind speed at landfall (which tied the all-time record with the "Labor Day" hurricane of 1935) is more important than Wilma in 2005. Perhaps something like this:
 * Hurricane Dorian was a category 5 tropical cyclone that devastated the northwestern Bahamas and caused significant damage to the Southeastern United States and Atlantic Canada. Dorian tied with the "Labor Day" hurricane of 1935 for the maximum sustained wind speed at landfall ever recorded.
 * Maybe the second sentence should go at the end of the first paragraph, after the 70,000 left homeless. Or it could be tossed out of the lead entirely. Remember, anything we toss out is always in the body of the article somewhere. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * "Extremely powerful" has other precedent for storms of similar intensity, and is a better descriptor than just "Category 5" (which, by the way, should be capitalized). At the very least, storms that set significant intensity records (Dorian is the strongest Bahamas hurricane when they receive major hurricane impacts fairly often) merit it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It would strengthen your argument if you had a source. Oldag07 (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Sources for what? NHC explicitly declared Dorian to be such in the 33rd advisory's discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I have no clue what the "33rd advisory's discussion" is. Can you give me a link? So far your argument against the term "category 5" is the fact that it is "bland" (according to your revert summary) and that "extremely powerful" is a "stronger statement" compared to "category 5". Wikipedia isn't about flowery language. Its overriding goal is to have a WP:NPOV and to seem WP:IMPARTIAL. Oldag07 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * NHC's 33rd discussion. The agency regularly refers to systems as "catastrophic Hurricane [ name ]" and "extremely powerful Hurricane [ name ]. I personally prefer avoiding the flowery wording in the opening sentence, but those descriptors have been used in official products. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 01:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
 * By "stronger statement", I mean that in the precise and rigorous sense in which mathematicians use that phrase. "A is divisible by 10" is a stronger statement than "A is divisible by 5".--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I know WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, but there seems to be a majority of people on this page who support changing the lead. I will change the sentence RoyGoldsmith's adding the term "extremely powerful as a form of compromise with Jasper Deng.  The term Category 5 seems very common amongst hurricane article lead sentences, and I see no reason why this page should be any different.  I certainly am willing to continue discussions here, but the lead sentence is a bit of a run on and it personally is a bit bothersome. Oldag07 (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think "Category 5" is necessary in the first sentence. The lead should be a succinct introduction of the subject to the reader. This is like saying "54 is a number divisible by 6 divisible by 3". The "divisible by 3" is plainly redundant and conveys no new information.--Jasper Deng (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Or we can go with the majority opinion and just get rid of "extremely powerful". Oldag07 (talk) 00:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Which is absolutely not okay with me. If you want to compromise, I suggest you instead keep it the way I had it – it being a Category 5 hurricane is plain from the infobox and therefore redundant in that sense as well. You said you didn't want redundancy, so don't include something that's redundant to the infobox. There are plenty of tropical cyclone articles using this nomenclature. The lead sentence is not a run-on sentence and is an accurate reflection of sources, so with "destructive" removed, there's nothing more to be done.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Your rewrite is worse than either version suggested here in my opinion. "extreme and catastrophic" is both redundant and vague ("extreme" has to be qualified by metric: Dorian most likely isn't the deadliest Bahamian hurricane on record, as deadly as it likely will end up being, while "catastrophic" is also redundant to the rest of the lead paragraph). Remember, the Bahamas at the time of the 1932 Bahamas hurricane had none of the modern building codes or warning systems of today.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There appears to be a certain unanimity for its title as the worst natural disaster, as well as one of the deadliest, in addition to it obviously being the costliest one. Costliest, deadliest, worst, most catastrophic, most intense at landfall... take your pick. But this needs to be represented with due weight in the lead—and preferably in a manner that does not exhaust the reader before they've parsed the first clause. Mentioning the impact for the Eastern Seaboard in the same sentence (which, relative to essentially any other storm that has impacted the US in recent times, hardly qualifies as "significant") just reads as a forced and borderline dismissive afterthought.


 * May I suggest "Hurricane Dorian was the most powerful tropical cyclone on record to strike the Bahamas, and is regarded as the worst natural disaster in the country." The opening sentence must both captivate and succinctly inform our readers of the subject matter; it need not contain a discombobulated summary of statistical facts and scientific records, but should prioritize the ones that are most historic, memorable and encyclopedic. <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★  ★  05:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Including the US in the opening sentence is, IMO, US-centric bias. As Auree mentioned, the impacts there pale in comparison to the Bahamas. The opening paragraph initially put forth by Auree was not redundant, it was a clear statement followed by further details to back it up. If we go by your logic, saying something is "catastrophic" then describing the damage in the impact section is redundant. A plethora of reliable sources back up the extreme/catastrophic line and that's how we report the information. FWIW the death toll is well-above 50 with many bodies discovered/recovered in the ruins of The Mudd; however, the government simply hasn't released an update on the number. I'm all for the succinct lead sentence in the above section by Auree. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with not having the US mentioned. With regard to "catastrophic", I am accepting the objections raised by the OP of this section about redundancy. I think Hylian's suggestion here doesn't have the redundancy/vagueness problems of the original rewrite. Actually, Hylian's revision (here, not what I reverted) seems to be better than either my version or the OP's.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Went ahead and rewrote the first paragraph per the above; feel free to point out where I'm off base. <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  06:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not against the new lead sentence, but the Bahamas is barely mentioned in the article. Moreover the phrase "worst natural disaster in the Bahamas' history" is begging for a source. It certainly doesn't have to be attached to the lead sentence, but it must be in the article, not just the talk page. I guess adding in information from the  Effects of Hurricane Dorian in The Bahamas  into the body of the article would make sense. Oldag07 (talk) 23:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

The sources were mentioned in the discussion above; I went ahead and included them. <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  04:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sub topic "Alabama controversy" should be removed.
wp:Not wp:CCOS This is a Opinion pieces about a current event, also is gossip surrounding Trump, the News articles would go against "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.'' ie singling someone out. Compare it to hurricane Katrina, there is one for what the government did around mismanagement and lack of leadership, they might have gotten people killed (most likely). There is no aftermath or signefect event around the hurricane, it's an event around Trump, this is a sub topic about one individuals tweets and remarks and the effects are his continues fake news shtick. It seems likes it's just a current event surrounding Trump, this should be in the Donald Trump wiki page if it falls under wp:CCOS. Dwightks11 05:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Katrina communication and lack of communication hovers around actions which should have been taken and were not taken. (Also around the ability of people to evacuate without having cars, especially when some transportation facilities were closed prematurely.) Trump's tweet is on a different scale. It is also true that the tweet and subsequent controversy centres around Trump. The original tweet raised a ripple, the determination to double down is what is raising the wave. I won't pretend to guess whether that kind of coverage is sought for its own sake, whether it is just standard hitting back, or whether it is something else entirely. Nonetheless, reaction to that tweet exceeds standard gossip and/or "fake news shtick" because of two factors. First, under U.S. law, altering official government weather forecasts is illegal. There are some very solid life-saving reasons for that law. Second, there is a casualty cost associated with evacuation as well as with direct effects of the storm. Extremely few evacuations are carried out without at least a few people dying or suffering life-altering injury as a consequence of the evacuation. If a misleading statement at high level had led to unnecessary evacuation -- as might well have happened had the NWS not immediately countered the tweet -- it would also (with statistical certainty) have led to unnecessary deaths. While both aspects probably do belong on one of the Trump-related pages, they also have direct relevance to the preparation aspect of this particular hurricane, as well as to the reliability of future disaster-related statements from the same source. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 06:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * CCOS does not apply here. The governing policy is WP:DUE which means that since reliable sources have written about Sharpiegate, we should be covering it in proportion to that coverage.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * - CCOS is an essay, not policy. Exactly which of the sources are opinion pieces? Also, if someone did something which could be viewed as negative, reporting it is not singling them out. As an exmaple, are articles on mass shootings singling the suspects out?  starship .paint  (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we should keep this information, since it has been so heavily reported and since Trump has insisted on bringing it up again and again. But (what I actually came here to say) it is way, way too long and detailed. It should be reduced to a single paragraph. I may do some trimming myself later today. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe "see also" to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veracity_of_statements_by_Donald_Trump#Hurricane_Dorian soibangla (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There are two sides to this. One is that the sharpie was just to show where the hurricane could have gone, the NOAA is right, and therefore Trump was genuinely mistaken about Dorian's eventual path. The other side is that he purposely drew the line (or, at least, had it drawn by someone) to prove his point. As long as we give readers a chance to come to a conclusion, it ought to be fair and acceptable. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not really. The original NOAA map from that date is still readily visible online and it does not contain that mark. That was newly added to the map Trump showed on television. (We don't know who added it, but we do know who uses sharpies all the time.) Trump certainly was genuinely mistaken when he mentioned Alabama as one of the states that should prepare for a hurricane. An innocent mistake; he misremembered his briefing or something. If he had just let it go, there would be no controversy. It was his days-long insistence on trying to prove that he had been right that created the controversy. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Washington Post: Trump was the one who altered Dorian trajectory map with Sharpie soibangla (talk) 22:08, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * This is a fart in the wind and has no lasting impact compared to the death and destruction that was caused by the hurricane in the Bahamas. It should be removed of course.--MONGO (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * While not denigrating in the slightest what has happened in the Bahamas and to a lesser extent in Nova Scotia (and I trust you are donating to the appropriate aid agency), your comment strongly implies that seemingly minor political questions are completely unimportant in the larger scheme of things. This somehow reminds me of King George III's diary entry for July 4, 1776 - "Nothing important happened today." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 16:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Ironically, Sharpiegate may be one of the long remembered aspects of the hurricane, and not the abject destruction being suffered as we debate this. 513 people came to the article just by looking up "Sharpiegate". It's not nothing, and we don't know what the long-term viewpoint on it will be. It's currently in the news, the butt of late night jokes, and is a valid subtopic on the subject of Hurricane Dorian. We can prune it down in the future, but for now, size constraints aren't an issue. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 20:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This kind of thing, particularly in relation to Trump, comes up all the time. I think people will forget it quickly in most circles. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 00:19, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering that Dorian didn't cause many casualties in the United States unlike previous hurricanes, it's certainly possible that a significant part of its legacy in America would indeed be Sharpiegate.  starship .paint  (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I think it's fairly ridiculous that the "Sharpiegate" section of the article is larger than the entire article's section on the hurricane's effects on the mainland US. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included, but the fact that it's covered in excruciating detail is definitely WP:UNDUE. The section should be 3 or 4 sentences, tops. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  15:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * US impacts are hardly fully known now and won’t be for some time. The answer is to expand the impacts section, not shrink the Sharpiegate section.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove - (assuming this is for local consensus) - if Trump created the path upon which the hurricane traveled, that information would be worthy of inclusion. His miscalculation of it is not, especially considering the grand scheme of things. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme  Talk 📧 16:06, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly what content policy says that “if Trump created the path upon which the hurricane traveled, that information would be worthy of inclusion”? Correct: there is none. This is highly documented in sources and is probably the most flagrant example ever of a politician altering a weather forecast so it is far beyond notable.—Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

OK, this issue had now outgrown this article and needs its own article. It erupted into a full blown scandal today, when it was reported that Interior Secretary Ross ordered the head of NOAA to issue a report supporting Trump's version, and threatened to fire the top people at NOAA if it wasn't done. I intend to expand the redirect Sharpiegate into an article and move most of the information from here to there. I may not have time to do it in the next few hours, so I invite anyone else to get it started and I will support them. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggested this at the RfD for Sharpiegate, and people were against it. So I'll hold off, but just you wait: now that the cabinet is involved, this is going to blow up into a big ongoing story. -- MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The real question is whether anything actually happens. If the only indicia of notability for a Trump controversy is that the media has gone histrionic once again, then it's not really encyclopedic. If it were a situation where, for example, a cabinet member stepped down or there was some tangible effect then that might be different. But the media flipping its lid for the millionth time without anything else happening is not really suitable for an encyclopedia. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  13:36, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There will be an investigation. It's not nothing. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem with any hot-button political issue, but especially with anything that Trump says or does, is that the media whips into a frenzy and then editors cover the controversy in extreme detail, despite the fact that there is little (potentially zero) lasting consequence at all. This seems to be one of those times. The fact of the matter is that, right now, there has been no practical consequence for anyone as a result of "sharpiegate." Nobody has lost their jobs. There has, quite literally, been no effect on anyone. Maybe that would change in the future. Just because the acting chief is looking into it doesn't mean that it has lasting significance or anything would ever happen. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be discussed; I think a couple sentences are appropriate. But definitely not an article or a massive section, as the Hurricane Dorian article has. Again, maybe that will change in the future. As of right now, though? The media has whipped up a tempest but it seems like it hasn't gone much further than the media. For now. May His Shadow Fall Upon You     Talk  14:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The USA Today article in Hurricanehink's link ended with The New York Times story is false," the spokesperson said. "Secretary Ross did not threaten to fire any NOAA staff over forecasting and public statements about Hurricane Dorian." Crazy politics and why it is so important for us to exercise caution when determining DUE.  There is also the WaPo article, and NPR which are of interest.  Since we're supposed to include verifiable facts with encyclopedic significance, is the fact that MSM made such a ta-do over Trump's concern for Alabama, and that he used a chart that was provided to him for the predicted path worthy of mention? Is it encyclopedic because a prediction with a precautionary undertow is receiving such attention from MSM...of course, hindsight is always 20-20 vision, or what I see as the peekhole that opens doors to whatever criticism is anxiously awaiting a grand entry. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme Talk 📧 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is pretty much true that up to now the issue has been propelled by the media, driven by Trump's repeatedly bringing the subject up and in particular by the altered map. But. BUT. The issue became much broader and more significant after NOAA issued a statement contradicting its own scientists in favor of Trump's version, and it was reported that NOAA had done so reluctantly on direct orders from the Commerce Secretary. At that point it was no longer just the media who cared about the issue. Strongly worded statements were made by the director of NWS and the head of the NWS employees' association, and investigations were launched by both the Commerce Department's inspector general and the NOAA chief scientist. What they are investigating, and what this story has now mushroomed into, is not the silly marked-up weather map. It's the evidence of direct political interference into what is supposed to be a science-based agency. That interference, and the strong reaction it is drawing from highly placed non-media people, is why this story is not going to go away. I do believe it will become an article of its own, sooner rather than later, and in fact I am drafting one. I believe it will be obvious very soon that one is needed. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is now confirmed the order for NOAA to issue a statement backing up the president's version came directly from the White House. See why I say it needs an article of its own? Here's my draft about this issue, which is getting more significant every day. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * What are you waiting for? NOAA was about the only one left that has not been too cozy with politicians and had a scandal of some sort or another, and then this happens... Gandydancer (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, for the RfD to close, for one thing. But a big advantage, and why I think people here might want to support a separate article: it means we could reduce the information at this article to a few sentences, with a "main article" link for the details. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree. I doubt very much that any other WP hurricane article has such a large section discussing a political happening related to it.  I think it makes us look rather unprofessional.  Gandydancer (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This needs a sub-article like the Hurricane Maria death toll controversy. It was a political issue surrounding the storm that got a lot of coverage. Although this is different, the issue is notable enough to warrant its own article. Hurricane Dorian's article should focus on more important issues surrounding the storm, not a political issue. <span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#009200 0.3em 0.4em 1.0em,#009200 -0.2em -0.2em 1.0em;color:#009200">Noah Talk 01:18, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I created the spinoff article. It is here: Hurricane Dorian-Alabama controversy. I will now trim out most of the Alabama section at this article. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Remove it all. This article should be about the hurricane and the destruction in the Bahamas in particular. In 5 years no one will give a hoot about this particular Trumpian sideshow....any "investigation" will lead to nothing.--MONGO (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I left a summary here, feeling it is needed. How do others feel? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your persistence! "Split & summarize" is certainly the right idea. The sub-article is indeed encyclopedic, and I think its lead paragraph alone might be enough of a summary for this main article. —173.68.139.31 (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It's important to get in the third paragraph, about the political influence and the investigations. I suppose I could trim it a little more and just combine it so it makes one paragraph. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I trimmed a less essential incident. I think what we now have is the minimum: three short paragraphs covering the three important aspects of this thing, namely: his initial statement, the contradiction, and his insistence that he had been right; the altered map incident; and the political interference and resulting investigations. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody restored my "less essential" incident. OK. What we have is still the minimum needed to summarize the issue. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:21, 13 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I oppose the creation of a separate article for "Sharpiegate," and I think there should just be a paragraph or two about it here. --Comment by <b style="color:#14866d">Selfie City</b> ( talk about my  contributions ) 20:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong remove and keep at most a factually written, non-tabloid-esque paragraph on the account. An encyclopedia is no place for cosmopolitan tabloid he-said/she-said politics that are mired in agenda and commercialism, especially not in an article on a major calamity. We are human beings writing human articles – let's have some humanity, shall we? <b style="font-family: charter BT; color: black">Auree</b> <sup style="color: #12ceb2;">★ ★  02:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2019
It says somewhere that the recorded deaths are 51,in reality that is a typo and there are 61 170.24.150.52 (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌: If you are talking about the sentence Damage in the Bahamas was catastrophic due to the prolonged and intense storm conditions, including heavy rainfall, high winds and storm surge, with thousands of homes destroyed and at least 51 deaths recorded., that refers only to the deaths in the Bahamas, which is accurate. If you have a source that says there were 61 deaths in the Bahamas, then I'd be glad to fix it. Jayab314  19:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, now I see170.24.150.11 (talk) 14:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

species went extinct
Can someone add that a species ij the Bahamas likely went extinct.To quote someone,"Sadly, the species is unlikely to have survived Dorian." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.16.99.72 (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source that cites the evidence that the species were unlikely to survive? And why is this new topic at the top?  F B  708  11:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving new comment to bottom. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

oopsy47.16.99.72 (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2019 (UTC) Anyway,the source says “Hurricane Dorian damage in thd Bahamas is worse than you can imagine”47.16.99.72 (talk)
 * So I searched it up. And what the top results were was this page, this page, and many other ones related to it.  F B  708  12:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

New damage estimate
A couple of days ago, UNECLAC, the Inter-American Development Bank, and the World Health Organization released a new estimate for the damage caused by Dorian in the Bahamas. It states that damage, losses, and additional costs total to US$3.4 billion. Should we use this in place of the previous US$7 billion estimate? ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Really depends on who gave the $7 billion value. If it was a Bahamas Govt. source, then the current value stays. If it is a not-govt source, change it. Anyways $3.4 billion seems too low as a toll, given Dorian stalled over Grand Bahama at C4/5 strength. I would like a toll as low as possible, but well, 7 billion seems like a more realistic figure, given what happened to the Abacos and Grand Bahama. --JavaHurricane (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Bahamas Death Toll and Missing
This figure is almost 2 months out of date. Current reporting says 70 confirmed dead and 282 still missing. . Cheers. --Kuzwa (talk) 18:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Jayab  314  19:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2020
Add http://www.ccga.edu/page.cfm?p=534&newsid=629 as a source for the College Of Coastal Georgia's campus closure in the preparations section. RbdgSwg (talk) 15:14, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you remove protection?
Hurricane Dorian, while dramatic, dissipated on 9/10/2019, before an INQUIRY on Trump was. While it was drastic, a hurricane did $320 million more in damage later i n 2019, not protected at all? Can someone consider it be removed? 'I remember ImTheOneKhaled'' being blocked from Wikipedia during the hurricane.47.16.99.72 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2020
Didn’t Hurricane Dorian have a huge impact in South Carolina or Georgia or wherever? Why are they not sub articles? 170.24.150.52 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 170.24.150.52 (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not an edit request. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Can it still be downgraded @Yamla? 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:AA (talk) 23:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC) I wanna edit it.
 * This is not a place to discuss random facts that have nothing to do with the article. United States Man (talk) 00:19, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Retirement postponed + what it means
Given that the convention this year for retiring names was cancelled because of the ongoing pandemic, this puts the usual retirement section added around this time in an unusual position. However given that they did have a full section on Dorian, it seems they are very likely considering retiring it come 2021. That said, I propose perhaps we could have a “Likely retirement” section where it states that Dorian would very likely be retired given the damage and topic at the convention, although this could be breaching WP:OR. However given the current situation we could likely make an exception. Any thoughts regarding this please respond. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 01:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was having the same OR thoughts while reading this before I got to the part where you mentioned it. I believe this would be considered speculation on our part, even if that speculation has plenty of ground to stand on. United States Man (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no need to venture into OR territory. Just find a source saying the conference was postponed and add it to the article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Why is Alabama considered mentioned in the everywhere else section
The fact that Alabama wasn't impacted doesn't seem to affect the article or the storm, as other states besides Alabama weren't affected as well. DNVIC (talk) 02:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Because of Trump and a sharpie.~ Destroyeraa 🌀 13:32, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * # Neverforget 😆 Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * LOL! 😆 🌀HurricaneJanor (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, # Neverforget. LOL. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

effects in north carolina article
it hit as a category 2 and likely did lots of damage. It should be an article. --98.116.128.15 (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC) See Effects of Hurricane Dorian in the Carolinas ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 14:23, 28 October 2020 (UTC)