Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods/Archive 1

Kentucky
Should the Kentucky floods be added to this page? They happened so close together, and it appears to me the same system that caused the Missouri floods hit the area in Kentucky that flooded. Bn5660 (talk) 05:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * We need a source to directly link them. This is one of the problem that has come to light recently with numerous complications.  Basically, this article use to be only for the Missouri floods, aka 2022 Missouri floods.  A new article, 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods was created for the Kentucky floods today.  A few hours after the Kentucky article was created, the creator of the 2022 Missouri floods article renamed this article to the 2022 Southeast floods.  Minutes later, the same editor began an AfD on the 2022 Eastern Kentucky article saying “The other article 2022 Southeast floods happened at the same time and has a similar flood location. 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods may be deleted if you do not explain why it is different floods.” Later, a behind the scenes cleanup editor renamed the 2022 Southeast floods to the July 2022 United States floods, and were unaware of the AfD in progress. The AfD nominator then recently tried to redirect/blank the 2022 Eastern Kentucky article even with the ongoing AfD.  They have been asked to provide a reliable source directly connecting the July 24-26 Missouri floods to the July 28 Kentucky floods, which was asked prior to the article redirect/blanking. In a way, it appears one editor is trying their hardest to merge the articles without providing any sources, so based on WP:OR. Based on my own original research, I think the floods are probably connected, but Wikipedia cannot act on that without a reliable source. So that’s the situation.  This merge became super complicated with an editor who is determined to merge the articles without providing a source or responding to AfD directions nor source requests. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All of that is to say that I am currently moving this article back to the 2022 Missouri floods as a way to let the real AfD take place and get the nominator (or someone at least) to link a source connecting the floods to the same storm system. Once a source is found, it should be a simple merge if that one editor just let’s the process happen. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Elijahandskip it seems that most editors don´t agree with you don't worry though we moved most of the text to July 2022 United States floods if you think anything is wrong go to Articles for deletion/2022 Eastern Kentucky floods Cabin134 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refer to your talk page. Two times now you have disregarded the directions of the discussion you began. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's an article from the Associated Press: EXPLAINER: One weather system floods St. Louis and Kentucky Ionmars10 (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

So basically I shouldn’t add info about E Kentucky to this article like I was going to lol Bn5660 (talk) 06:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is slightly relevant to this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

These should be combined as one article to prevent unnecessary confusion and content splitting. It should be okay to go ahead and add content about Missouri, Kentucky, and Las Vegas to this article. United States Man (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No. See my reply to your !vote below.  Right now is a mess and you are only encouraging a disruptive editor to create a CFORK confusion at an AfD. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s really not a mess. Just take these two short articles and make one longer page. It’s very simple. United States Man (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The point is, we can’t without creating a CFORK because Cabin134 started a stupid AfD discussion and is now trying to not properly close it and accuses anyone (aka me) who wants to do a proper closure of vandalism. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That discussion will be snowball closed soon. Then just merge them and include information about Las Vegas as well. I would help but currently on mobile. Not meaning to get mad at you because we all seem to want the same thing here. No need to jump through all these hoops. United States Man (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * For the article content, we are on the same page. In terms of the ANI, we are not, so I am done here, but recommend you truly look at the ANI, because currently you are perfectly ok with an editor causing disruption and ignoring talk page alerts. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You really don’t know what I’m okay with. I do think running to AN/I right off the bat was highly unnecessary. When you have fresh events, you have to let all the random editors do their thing and just go back later and clean up. It works a whole lot easier for everyone and these discussions aren’t necessary. United States Man (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * so apperntly, some pepole dissagre with me like @Elijahandskip, and@United States Man this is a very serious edit war it stared when @Cabin134:The other article 2022 Southeast floods happened at the same time and has a similar flood location. 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods may be deleted if you do not explain why it is different floods. @Elijahandskip:No sources directly linking this storm system to the storm that caused the Missouri (St. Louis) floods two days ago (July 26). If you can provide a source that directly links both floods to the same storm, then my !vote will switch to a support, but without any source doing so, any deletion/merge would not be a good idea per WP:OR. Another thing to point out, the nominator moved the 2022 Missouri floods to the current title of 2022 Southeast floods without discussions as a way to start this AfD to combine the articles. (1), I cannot find a direct source linking the two floods to the exact same storm system and (2), the rename first then AfD seems slightly off, especially since the nomination said “happened at the same time”, which is false since the Missouri floods began on the 26th and these began not he 28th. Why? is it diffrent. Cabin134 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to not be listening to anyone. The problem is not with the merge.  The entire issue is you redirecting/merging 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods while the Articles for deletion/2022 Eastern Kentucky floods is ongoing. That discussion takes 7 days, not a few hours, so you cannot merge/redirect the article until it ends. Numerous messages on your talk page state that and the discussion at the Administrators noticeboard state that. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * stop making Fantisty predictons @Elijahandskip I think you are not the one that is not listing the reason I am doing this is because 2 days ago i found this article on the National Weather Service
 * [web.archive.org/web/https://www.weather.gov/ind/flooding] wich said both floods merged on July 27, 2022. Cabin134 (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. United States Man (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022 United States floods → 2022 Missouri floods – Article is currently still over just the Missouri floods, as there is currently a different article for the 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods. That article is current under an AfD, which was nominated by this articles creator. The section above this gives a history of the two articles, but in short, no discussions took place about merging the two, just the article creator saying, from what appears to be WP:OR they were the same flood. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: I attempted a speedy deletion request to do the move myself, but it was declined, so here we are, so my !vote as nominator is more a speedy move because of the AfD/article problems mentioned above.Elijahandskip (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Support As events are seperate, though I question if this alone is enough, as this is similar to the 2014 New York flood which got redirected; I think it should be merged to the more general US flood article. 50.200.241.190 (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, they're separate events and the page move was jumping the gun. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Since these floods occurred in quick succession, I believe they should all be combined into one article. Missouri and Kentucky are somewhat related with a stalled frontal boundary, and Las Vegas could be included as well. Nothing says we need different short articles for different events instead of having one comprehensive article about everything. United States Man (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That’s not the point currently. This whole situation is a mess, especially with the article’s creator and 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods AfD nominator now involved in an ANI discussion for accusations and multiple editor alert disregards. In the end, they probably all will be combined into an article of this title, but currently, this is just for the Missouri floods due to the whole situation.  (Section above titled “Kentucky” explains the history of this mess and a link to the ANI.)  Right now, this needs to be speedy moved so a true larger merge discussion can take place without a disruptive editor in the middle causing issues all around. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you quit with move requests and just take all the content and put it in one place? That would be a great deal simpler and no one seems to oppose that. United States Man (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How about you stop encouraging a disruptive editor to continue being disruptive, creating CFORKS, and accusations of vandalism. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * hey Elijahandskip, you are being very inaproptate for saying words like disruptive vandalism and stop the argment it is really simple it is very wrong or elese you sould be blocked. Cabin134 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pointing out for editors that Cabin134 was partially blocked by an admin from editing 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods for 24 hours. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Withdrawing: Seems like the articles current process is good. Having a section for the Kentucky floods with the main article link attached too it. Since 2022 Eastern Kentucky floods had a keep AfD that surprisingly did not have a lot of merge comments, a true merge proposal should be done if anyone wants to merge the two articles truly together. Enough information is coming from the Kentucky floods plus an ITN nomination, it probably has enough notability as a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove information about flooding in Death Valley and California/Arizona from this article
Those flooding/flood events are insignificant and are part of the regular monsoon season that happens every year. Last year, in July 2021, there was more severe flooding that was happening in Arizona due to a much wetter monsoon season than this year's, yet there's no separate page about that. Also, Death Valley has flooded multiple times in the past few years, but there's no separate page for any of those flood events. Like I know in 2019 Death Valley flooded once also.

If you really want to add about the Southwest flood events on Wikipedia, there are pages called "List of floods" or "List of flood events" for example and you can add it there. But it isn't important enough to be added to this article.

Another thing is that the Midwest floods actually were all part of the same weather pattern, but the Southwest floods have nothing to do with them. I propose removing them from this article and renaming this article to something like "2022 Midwest floods" or "2022 Midwest and Appalachia floods" or something like that. Thanks. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would oppose this since those floods garnered significant media coverage. Other floods not having pages is not a valid reason for this flood series to not be included. Also, the page is aptly named, so no page renaming location-wise is necessary. United States Man (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I disagree. The only reason why this event garnered significant media coverage is because it happened in Las Vegas, the casinos where everyone or a lot of people go to every year. But other than that, there was nothing significant about this event, and it was nothing more than less than 1 inch of rain falling in a day. Had this happened in any other city it would not have been significant. Also the flooding that happened in Las Vegas cannot be compared at all to the St. Louis flooding, because in Las Vegas it was only a few streets and casinos that got flooded, but in St. Louis it was entire homes, neighborhoods, and businesses that were flooded.


 * In Las Vegas and other desert areas, it only floods easier, so even with 1 inch of rainfall you can get flooding. But that still doesn't make it significant.


 * If you really want to keep the material about the Southwest floods, I suggest that we move it to the page Floods in the United States (2000–present) instead. That page has the list of lesser significant flood and flash flood events. But keeping it here in this article doesn't really make sense. EagerBeaverPJ (talk) 04:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know we might move info on California/Arizona/Utah/Idaho info to July-August 2022 westearn United states floods Cabin134 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 August 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved - Consensus that these floods are also occurring in August. Changing the target of the move halfway through the RM definitely confuses things and is not advisable, but I'll do the move anyway per WP:NOTBURO. Anyone disagrees with this come and find me on my talk page. FOARP (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 11:07, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

July 2022 United States floods → July–August 2022 United States floods – Floods are still ongoing and stretched two summer months (July & August). With this being an ITN article, this requested move has to be done over a WP:BOLD move. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose – It does need to be renamed, but this is not the proper title. July–August would be preferred. United States Man (talk) 14:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * July–August seems reasonable. I think 2022 United States summer floods is too vague. Compare with 2022 Montana floods which is also in the United States and (at least by some definitions of summer) is also in the summer. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Also, there does not appear to be a consensus yet about whether this is really one event or multiple separate events. See the supporters in the Requested move 29 July 2022 section above, and EagerBeaverPJ's argument in the section below. (I'm not taking any position at the moment.) If the scope ends up being narrowed to a particular region, then of course my comment about 2022 Montana floods would no longer be relevant. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * True. For me this article is a mess of original research because there is no source attributing these flash floods to the same meteorological event. Therefore this is rather a List of United States summer flash floods of 2022 than a senseful article. Therefore oppose amd revert mergings. Otherwise RfD. Do you guys ever reflect one second, what those merging of articles does to Wikidata and resulting on other language projects? Until before the Kentucky/WV event was going to be my next German WP article. Now I dunno anymore unless we get this sorted out on Wikidata. --Matthiasb (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , well because of the titles, it does not have to be from the same meteorological system. Same way June 2022 Flagstaff wildfires isn’t all the same wildfire. Also, I got 100% promise you this will not be deleted as it was (and still is) ITN. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * NOTE: Since consensus seems to be for July–August 2022 United States floods, I have redone the request since it is only two days old. (Pinging users who !voted oppose to the previous but supported this title to allow for a quick updated !vote:, , ) Elijahandskip (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support adding August to the title. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * What about moving to 2022 United States floods? We might have this same debate come September 1st. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 15:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The cutoff was August 2. It rains and floods somewhere everyday. Most of it isn’t newsworthy. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Include August 5 Death Valley floods?
Should we add a section for august 5 floods in Death Valley, that broke records and stranded over 1,000 people? 47.23.6.178 (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Global warming citations
Hi all. I was wondering what people thought about putting back in the material I've added, discussing experts' opinions about whether the flooding was made more likely or worse by global warming. I added this text but it was removed by.

I think this is well-cited, we have among others two international news organizations, the Washington Post and The Guardian, and other well-respected news organizations, The Courier-Journal and The Hill, and these sources cite a reasonable range of experts: "Janey Camp, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University", " Jonathan Overpeck, an earth and environmental sciences professor at the University of Michigan", " Rebecca Hersher from NPR’s climate team". (There's also this source which I hadn't added in, which interviewed experts at the University of Georgia, Duke University and Colorado State University.) So I think the material is well-sourced and being discussed by reliable sources in relation to these specific floods. We also regularly mention global warming when discussing similar events in other parts of the world e.g. the articles on wildfires in California in 2022, 2021 and 2020 all mention it. Blythwood (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You mention sources such as NPR and the Washington Post, which are known to be biased politically. I don’t think publishing information from biased sources on what should be an unbiased article is very smart. United States Man (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message. I think there's consensus that their reporting is generally accurate. WP:RSP lists Washington Post "most editors consider The Washington Post generally reliable", NPR "There is consensus that NPR is generally reliable for news and statements of fact. NPR's opinion pieces should only be used with attribution", Guardian: "There is consensus that The Guardian is generally reliable" ("Some editors believe The Guardian is biased or opinionated for politics", but this isn't a politics story.) I'd welcome opinions on problems with the specific stories, but the experts cited generally look legit. To make sure, I've checked the twitter feeds of Camp, Overpeck and Hersher, and none of them mention being misquoted or misrepresented by these articles. Do you have specific concerns in mind? Blythwood (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed you should have waited a bit for replies before re-adding that, lest it becomes an edit-war after all. That being said, I support bringing the paragraph back. Of course, in the end everything is about politics, even baby food recently. We couldn't be using any sources at all if we'd like to stay clear of political bias; and I'd be hard-pressed to name any single news source that isn't leaning in some political direction. Thus, we can't discard the Guardian and the Washington Post here, but we could add more reactions – provided they are reliable. I've found more mentions about this if it's of any use: ABC News, Scientific American, Die Zeit (German). And a more cautious analysis by the Financial Times – they put more emphasis on current weather patterns (La Niña), but still file it under "climate change". --LordPeterII (talk) 21:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you insist on putting this in? What does it really add to it? Unlike actual facts regarding the event (which have been added), this doesn’t add anything of value to the article. Thus I would be opposed to adding it and less inclined to be cooperative with the proposer who has taken to a bit of edit warring over the matter. United States Man (talk) 22:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why insist on keeping this out? Wikipedia articles rarely consist solely of "actual facts", but quite often also of reactions, interpretations and similar things. Of course we need to be careful about what to write in wikivoice – but if we are quoting people whose evaluations have been broadcast by reliable sources, it's fine. An example of another recent extreme weather event that includes such statements would be the 2021 European floods. There we have even an entire section dedicated to analysis in regards to climate change. I mean, I can understand that many people want to keep articles concise and to the point. But that is not an argument per se to exclude information that could be included under our policies. The paragraph in question does add to the article, even if it may not be desirable for everyone.
 * I also don't believe in ridiculing people who deny climate change – I believe they are wrong, personally; but that doesn't entitle me to patronize them. But let me be clear: Even if someone doesn't believe climate change is happening, they will still have heard of people explaining that it exists. None can in any reasonable way try to prevent people (often scientists) from expressing their opinion, and drawing connections between extreme weather events and climate change; likewise non can prevent people from expressing their view that climate change was a fraud. Whether phenomena like the Kentucky floods are actually caused by climate change, and whether climate change is real, fake, human-caused or natural, is not part of the immediate question at hand.
 * The question at hand is, imo: Is the information related/relevant to the article? Yes. Is the information referenced to reilable sources? Yes. Is the paragraph grossly biased and giving undue weight? No (although we could add opposing views). Thus, we add the paragraph back in. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, an entire section called "Causes" would probably be better than adding back that single paragraph in the middle of the "Impact" prose. That is a point that I would agree with. Like e.g. the California wildfire article has, with climate change being just one of the subsections. This applies here as well: While climate change is always looming over everything in the distance, immediate causes are here e.g. La Niña (per Financial Times), local "topography and geology" (per ABC news) and also a "legacy of coal mining" (per Scientific American) (the latter two specifically for Kentucky). This should give a more balanced and readable article; but alas I won't do it myself, as I'm spread too thin between a lot of DYK and other projects :/ --LordPeterII (talk) 16:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My opposition to it stands. United States Man (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, may I ask with what reasoning? You can't oppose just "because" (I mean you can, but it's not very convincing). I apologize for writing half an essay above, but I think the more general "Causes" section should make a good compromise, bringing this article in line with many other articles we have. --LordPeterII (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want, you may start a RfC about this; but as it stands you are alone on opposing this, with no further explanation given on why. If you don't want to discuss it further, I'm now going to re-add the removed sentences. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You don’t have any consensus to readd it. This isn’t a raw vote, so a 2-1 doesn’t really justify a consensus. This information is misleading, biased, not useful, and not necessary, so it should not be included. United States Man (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, noted. I'm not trying to cheat you here,, but this is an unfortunate stalemate which neither side can indeed claim a consensus. Not adding it would favour you, adding it would favour us. So, I propose a Request for Comment. Sounds good? --LordPeterII (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you want to add misleading, biased, unnecessary information? United States Man (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

... because I don't believe it is "misleading, biased, unnecessary" – as did. I respect your opinion on that, but I disagree. And since this is Wikipedia, we either need to find a compromise (I have given you my suggestions on that above), or get some sort of vote if we fail to find agreement. Since it seems the latter is the case, I suggest we bring in other, uninvolved people, to see what the majority thinks. And a RfC is the most neutral and fair way to do it, so I propose that. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Global warming not climate change?
In this edit, it was said in the edit summary that “Since the RfC was not properly phrased to deal with this edit, I categorically reject the contention that this addition has anything to do with the poorly phrased RfC.” Now that somehow starts this discussion about whether having a sentence about global warming (with wiki-links to Effects of climate change & Climate change in the United States) is actually about climate change and falls under the RfC. In my view, having a sentence link to climate change (2 times) is automatically related to the subject, therefore, I believe is being disruptive with that re-revert and should revert it back until the RfC concludes. Note: This discussion is not about “should this sentence be added”, but rather if linking to climate change articles and then saying it is not about climate change is disruptive editing in the middle of an ongoing RfC (which again will most likely add it in the future). Elijahandskip (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is inappropriate to use process to halt legitimate edits on an article. Content was removed and dubious arguments were made justifying it. Many of those comments were making that the content was controversial without any explanation as to how and whether such claims were actually controversial in reliable sources. Instead, I see accounts that seem to be controlled by people who think global warming is a controversial topic just because which is a classic tactic of global warming denial. What I think we are seeing here is witting and unwitting support for a WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH of people including yourself who are trying to "stand up to those experts" who are linking global warming with extreme weather events. Note that I am not accusing you necessarily of toeing that line, but I worry that you may be carrying water for this political push without intending to. jps (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope. In this case, I am just helping keep Wikipedia processes the same. An RfC is in progress about adding any information about climate change to the article, so you adding information about “global warming” and wiki-links to climate change articles, then saying it doesn’t fall under the RfC about that exact topic isn’t anything except trying to bypass the RfC result, which won’t be known for nearly a month. All I was doing (and another editor also saw and seemed to agree) that it was disruptive to add that content to the article at this time. That is all it was. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an unacceptable amount of feet dragging--process for process sake. See WP:NOTBURO. This kind of obstructionism on articles is typically indicative of POV-pushing tactics. I am not here for it and will send it up the lines of WP:DR if that's really what you want to play here. jps (talk) 13:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you want to go that route, then let me remind you that global warming IS climate change. And you also did say that global warming (while wiki-linking to a climate change article) was not about the RfC, which has the sole purpose to add ANY climate change information to the article. In this case, I feel POV-pushing from you as you clearly do not care about the RfC and don’t respect the system Wikipedia has in place for dispute resolutions, which in fact is one purpose of an RfC. You RfC !vote was “Reject the premise of the RfC”, but that does not give your the right to disregard it for your own personal opinion. If you take all that into consideration, it is in fact you who is POV-pushing. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's perfectly fine for me to ignore the RfC if I think it is holding things back and preventing the encyclopedia from being improved. That's the essence of WP:IAR. jps (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. “Feet dragging—process for process sake”? That legit makes 0 sense as the RfC is the standard 30-days, so could you explain what you mean by that? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a delay tactic by people who want to prevent changes to an article. "Oh, let's just let the RfC play out" when there is clearly one side (your side) which is ignoring a tremendous amount of sourcing and being disingenuous, in my estimation. There are plenty of ways to get around that kind of obstruction. jps (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well please note that if you add it again before the RfC concludes, I will go to DR or AN as that would be disruptive editing and at that point, forcibly adding your content based on your opinion with two different editors saying not to do it until the RfC concludes. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to request that the RfC be boldly closed as snow support. Seems like it is headed that direction in spite of it all. jps (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to request it be snow closed. The people who have participated in the RfC can’t do a SNOW closure, but you can request an admin who hasn’t commented in it close it. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't need to be an admin. jps (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also: from Requests_for_comment: "If the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion." We don't need to use Legobot here. I think we can close the RfC and say that my side won. jps (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on that “my side won” statement and mentality, I would strongly advise you do not close the RfC… Clearly you do not understand the point of a Request for Comment as there is no “sides”. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

There are sides here. One side is yours which is basically playing the "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" game with sourcing and the other side are those of us looking on in awe that this sort of obstructionism is being tolerated. jps (talk) 16:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @jps I implore you to not re-add that info or interrupt the discussion while it is ongoing. If you want to see "sides", then I'm on yours; but I strongly believe in consensus and our tools (like RfC) to keep discussions objective and civil. You may deem 's arguments null and void, but that doesn't give you the right to interrupt the process. Without my RfC, none of you proponents (except ) would be aware of this issue, so I believe the RfC has already been a success, even if improperly phrased (but I should mention that I sought expert help with phrasing it beforehand). --LordPeterII (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your idealism here, but I think that undue adherence to consensus is why the article has been in a state of limbo for as long as it has been. There really is no sense in continuing to draw this out when there seems to be an imbalance in the tactics being used here to effect a particular approach to the subject that is more-and-more becoming clearly an ideological point of attack. RfCs are fine when they are used to attract outside notice. They are not supposed to be used to prevent people from editing an article. jps (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think jps has honestly been more disruptive to the whole process than helpful. I question why there seems to be so much hostility from this user regarding this page that said user was never even seen on by the main author until yesterday. United States Man (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I think disrupting a process that allows users to hide behind "process" as a fig leaf for not improving an article is a fairly good way to do things. I think it is somewhat disruptive to make categorical claims of "bias" and "controversy" without sources that show that this is the case. jps (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you don't believe that NPR and Washington Post are biased sources, you are obviously on the same side. What value, if any, have you really added to this discussion other than just argument? United States Man (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Explain exactly how these sources are biased when it comes to climate change. jps (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have the time to sit and argue because you obviously won't understand (because of your obvious political stance). Although I have heard from official "degreed" climatologists (whom I will not name) that certain left-biased media (and government) use fearmongering as a way to drive monetary investment into the so-called climate industry in order to promote the companies of certain people who are connected to government officials. Many people who skew that way politically (even scientists) typically line up with these viewpoints whether they are true or not. I will now cease further argument or acknowledgement of this discussion because I like to edit Wikipedia and do not wish to be drug down into the mire of others who obviously have nothing to do. United States Man (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Go peddle your idiot conspiracy theories somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for being so welcoming of everyone, regardless of their opposing views! Have a good evening. United States Man (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTFORUM, nobody is obliged to be 'welcoming' of irrelevant vacuous tinfoil-hat soapboxing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well tbh, what you stated above really reads like the text-book example of a conspiracy theory (can't name source, government involved, big money). You're not helping your cause, seriously. (Btw, I have started this RfC out of respect for your reservations in the original discussion, so please take that as a sign that not all editors who "believe" in climate change are unwelcoming.)
 * But I would also like to suggest (and myself) stop making further comments. This discussion is derailing, fast, and it's time to stop. RfC is above, if you want to discuss on-topic.
 * Please no offtopic discussions anymore. --LordPeterII (talk) 23:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it was helpful insofar as we now know that one of the Oppose !voters is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a fringe view. That user can be ignored when questions about climate change are discussed, and given the dearth of sound reasoning by Oppose !voters already noted, it looks more and more like WP:SNOW. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Mississippi water crisis
United States Man seems hellbent on removing a CNN link that portrays that the crisis was so bad bottled water needed to be given out. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=July%E2%80%93August_2022_United_States_floods&diff=prev&oldid=1107920788 Should it stay?47.16.96.33 (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Whoever you are, you need to create an account and stop hoping around on different IP addresses. It's very annoying to have to clean up after you make these edits either with poor writing skills or inserting information into the wrong place. United States Man (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:BITE is still a thing. Use the welcome template and assume good faith. jps (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Myself and other users have been getting harassed for months by someone hoping around on different IP addresses, so you need to get the full story before commenting. United States Man (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Can confirm what United States Man said about the same user using different IP addresses. An editor actually took myself and USM to an AN/I discussion, which made the discussion painful to work with as the same person (confirmed by them in the AN/I) was making the edits and comments. During the AN/I, there was at least 7 different IP addresses used. I wouldn't fully agree with "harassed", but yeah, it is the same user with now probably like 14 different IP addresses they are hopping between, so tracking edits, replying to edits, and discussions have been a nightmare recently. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you need to get a thicker skin, then. This IP was not doing anything all that outrageous in this instance. jps (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Other than making a rather rude comment in the edit summary on the main page. The topic really doesn't concern you other than trying to be seen. You obviously don't AGF. I tried on the beginning with this user but months of the same behavior gets annoying. United States Man (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you get to decide who does or does not comment on things. You have to deal with everyone and that includes IP hoppers and me. That's the way Wikipedia works. jps (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you enjoy involving yourself in the matters of other users? United States Man (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * On topic, I don't see a reason why this information shouldn't be included. (But please no more fighting.) --LordPeterII (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record, the information is already in there. The anon user just put it in the wrong place and worded it poorly. Also, you are the one who started all the fighting. United States Man (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, it's there now indeed. I've only formatted the citation properly. Guess we can consider this specific dicussion closed then. But I reject the accusation of me having started a fight here, that's absurd. --LordPeterII (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Reliable sources which discuss this flooding in relation to climate change
Relevant quotes:
 * "We are going to have to change the labeling because these are not one-in-1,000-years events any more.... Climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of flooding and it will likely get worse with further warming. We are also seeing these repeated storms hit the same area, like Kentucky, again and again in a short period of time, which isn’t well understood. But we know the hot temperatures, like the eastern US has just had, has helped build the water in the atmosphere." --Andreas Prein, NCAR
 * "We are being bombarded by one significant weather event after another. We are a very conservative state so we stray away from explicitly mentioning climate change because some people stop listening. But we can talk about the trends and the need to adapt." --Kentucky's Interim State Climatologist Megan Schargorodski


 * "We are witnessing firsthand the effects of ordinary weather events — a product of chaotic randomness and natural variability — supercharged by climate change. Nowadays, however, our climate is evolving rapidly enough that previously defined recurrence intervals based on historic data might no longer apply." --Matthew Cappucci, meteorologist
 * “Recurrence intervals start to lose their meaning for ‘nonstationary’ systems,” he wrote, “in this case because there is a trend toward greater extremes in a warming climate.” --Michael Mann, Penn State Climate Scientist


 * "The first thing the recent floods tell us is that the climate is changing. In the past, it might have made sense to consider a flood a rare and random event – communities could just build back. But the statistical distribution of weather events and natural disasters is shifting. What might have been a 1-in-500-year event may become a 1-in-100-year event, on the way to becoming a 1-in-50-year event." --Ricky Rood, University of Michigan Professor of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering


 * “These extremes of course are getting more extreme. This is in line with what we expected.” --Gerald Meehl, NCAR
 * "The scientists at World Weather Attribution, mostly volunteers who quickly examine extreme weather for a climate change fingerprint, have a strict criteria of events to investigate: they have to be record-breaking, cause a significant number of deaths, or impact at least 1 million people. So far this year they’ve been swamped. There have been 41 events — eight floods, three storms, eight droughts, 18 heat waves and four cold waves — that have reached that threshold point, said WWA official Julie Arrighi, associate director of the Red Cross Red Crescent Climate Center." --direct quote from the article


 * "NWS noted that both the St. Louis and Kentucky rains and flash floods were one-in-1000 years events. Recent events and scientific analyses suggest that once-rare events are becoming more likely as Earth’s atmosphere warms and can hold more moisture." --direct quote from the article

I could go on, but this is just indicative of what reliable sources are saying about this particular topic. I find is absurd that there are people who are arguing that all these sources need to be kept from the article. What kind of game are y'all playing here?

jps (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Four of the five quoted sources above include content that acknowledges a lack of certainty: "isn't well understood", "data might no longer apply", "may become", "analyses suggest". Not quoted from the Time source: "Scientists suspect climate change is at work". Any inclusion in this article should mirror this perspective. —ADavidB 12:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is your tactic now really going to pivot to engaging in "mythic reasoning about climate uncertainty"? Straight out of the denialist playbook? In any case, the content that has been removed by you and others hewed close to the sources. No one is arguing that we shouldn't do that. jps (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF —ADavidB 14:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying my best here. Your actions seem consistent with only one approach and it is not in line with what I consider best practices. jps (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While I don't believe these side-discussions are really fruitful until the RfC is through, I actually agree that we have a level of uncertainty. Please see Extreme event attribution as brought up by above. But while a degree of uncertainty remains, we have expert statements that we should include. I'm personally all for not using WP:WIKIVOICE, but attributed statements. Whether these are "true" or "unimpeachable" is not important here, but that they are related, from experts and reliable sources. We have such attributed statements even for much more controversial topics. But in order to even display these nuances, we would need to mention anything – the current total exclusion is highly unusual for Wikipedia articles, even controversial ones. --LordPeterII (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that obsession with (any) levels of uncertainty is something that is a favorite tactic of deniers to harp on. Now, I'm all for being honest and including careful attribution and the like, but to focus on uncertainty at the expense of the linear model is a classic Merchants of Doubt tactic. It needs to be challenged because it prevents clear exposition and has stymied inclusion of any discussion of the topic at all in this article, as we're currently seeing. jps (talk) 21:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Please be patient and just follow the RFC. I still wouldn't want to change a simple factual history of specific events organized by the date each occurred into a political article by adding somewhat WP:OFFTOPIC generality and opinions on a politically touchy topic, and whiff of soapbox.  The recent heat and name-calling and extra postings ‘global warming not climate change’ seem not adding reputable debate to the mix.   I see no use to even do all this thrashing — simply be civil and wait another week or so for the RFC.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't the RfC. There is no need to post your !vote here, or to copy-paste your comments from that thread. And no, citing what reliable sources have to say regarding the relationship between climate change and recent highly-unusual weather events in the United States isn't 'off-topic'. Not remotely. We base article content on what such sources have to say, even if certain political factions would prefer that science they don't like isn't talked about. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Archive header
It isn’t showing. No way to find the archives. Can someone fix this? 98.116.128.17 (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RfC about mentioning of climate change
Some sources say climate change makes floods like these more likely. Should that information be included in this article? --LordPeterII (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say that your oppose vote is the only one I actually find convincing at this point. Not that I am swayed by it to change my vote; but it does actually read like you thought about the topic and question, and came to a conclusion that wasn't pre-formed by your worldview. Thank you for that; we need more people who can argue in this way, neutral and objective. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to closer: Since the above opinion is unambiguously based on expressing climate change skepticism, which is well-established to be a WP:FRINGE perspective, it should be excluded when evaluating consensus, as should any that are essentially based on it. "Climate change may not be real" is a clear WP:PROFRINGE perspective and therefore not a policy-based argument. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well someone is dumb. My exact quote was “…anyone can get a meteorology or hydrology degree in 3-4 years and say “Climate change is real/not real” and people might/would believe them as they are degreed so I really do not appreciate being taken out of context especially since I provided both sides. POV-push much to try to get a very well written reason out of consideration, even with another editor (who !voted the opposite of my view) even saying it made good logical sense. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wait, who is dumb? Is it you? You're claiming that there are two sides here, but I see no sources which indicate that there are. jps (talk) 16:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Academia is getting pretty clear on the flood modeling, so long as there's the papers and reliable reporting to back this up I don't see why we should exclude such context solely because people's personal/political beliefs disagree. Semen talks about sex, it's relevant information there and relevant here.
 * Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the discussion won’t be whether to include or not, but whether we can include it right now or not. The floods were happening a month ago, so an academic paper talking about climate change related to the specific floods in this probably do not exist at the moment. I could be wrong on that though (so if someone has a link to a paper, please link it in the RfC). Your comment and my comment earlier seem to be close to the same that academic papers is needed for it. I can easily say it will be added in the future (probably 2-3 months from now), but a month (less than a month for the later floods) after the floods, I highly doubt any published papers exist on the topic. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:31, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There are published papers on floods (in general) being more likely w/Climate Change but there probably aren't any yet on these specific floodplains at this specific time. So probably the salient question is which is the minimum for this article.
 * Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to say that I disagree: "Semen talks about sex, it's relevant information there and relevant here" – I think we don't need to include information about "sex" in this article about a flood. We need to include "climate change". --LordPeterII (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I didn't mean that literally! I'm more saying that relevant information should be displayed (pretty much) no matter what if it's pertinent. Climate change is (probably) pertinent here but most likely wouldn't be in the Semen article.
 * Basedeunie042 (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I know ^^ But I couldn't resist replying thus, since your post could be misread; 'twas only a joke :P --LordPeterII (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know ^^ But I couldn't resist replying thus, since your post could be misread; 'twas only a joke :P --LordPeterII (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose – per Elijahandskip and my previous comments. United States Man (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see a previous discussion (Talk:July–August 2022 United States floods) on the topic of the RfC (seems to be what led to the start of the RfC), so I am pinging the other editor involved in that discussion who hasn't already commented, editors of the article, and WP Weather members:, , , , , , . Elijahandskip (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a source directly linking climate change to these floods? I haven't found anything besides news articles. If you or anyone else has sources, can someone link them here? Elijahandskip (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not a proven fact. Only opinion and misleading statements. United States Man (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not a proven fact. Only opinion and misleading statements. United States Man (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not a proven fact. Only opinion and misleading statements. United States Man (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Per comments below. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:48, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. This was discussed above, with no consensus, hence why I started this RfC. The sources discussed were, or more precisely the people to whom we would attribute the statements: Professor of geophysics Michael Wysession (via PBS), Kentucky's state climatologist Megan Schargorodski (via Louisville Courier Journal), professor of earth and environmental sciences Jonathan Overpeck (via The Guardian), director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia and former president of the American Meteorological Society Marshall Shepherd (via ABC News), professor of forest hydrology and watershed management at the University of Kentucky Chris Barton (via Scientific American) and State Geologist of Kentucky Bill Haneberg (via Die Zeit, in German), among others. @ I believe these are not people who you'd describe as "anyone can get a meteorology or hydrology degree in 3-4 years", these seem to be experts.
 * And I'm not aware of any guideline that requires an academic paper explicitly written about a specific event. There are more general papers, which link flood risks to climate change for the entire US (see e.g. this paper in Nature), just not specifically for this one flood in July–August 2022. But I'd argue that if all floods are thought to be made more likely by climate change, and we have several university professors (of related fields!) who connect it to this flood also, it does seem likely that the event discussed in this article is some "special case" where a fresh academic paper is required. I'm not even against including opposing views, but I frankly couldn't find any (if you find any, we need to add them, too!). Disallowing the inclusion of climate change as (one of several!) causes does not seem to follow any logic to me, it would just be withholding information because we deem that "all these experts get it wrong".
 * I'm also not trying to argue per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but a large number of existing recent flood articles (that aren't stubs) include mentions of climate change, including 2022 Pakistan floods, 2021–2022 Malaysian floods and 2021 European floods. Thus, there doesn't seem to be consensus for withholding such (attributed) information. Ofc this RfC is about the article at hand; but I find it surprising that, as noticed by, while all the recent California wildfires (2022, 2021, 2020) mention climate change, none of the US flood events do (although sources exist, too!). Given the multiple reliable sources above who discuss the summer 2022 US floods, plus the general "US floods linked to climate change" paper, I do not see why in this case, we should not add it. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just wanted to point out one of the people I stated above were "experts" is in fact J. Marshall Shepherd, former president of THE American Meteorological Society. If the president of that society is not considered an expert, then I'd like to know who is. Controversial topic or not, we don't censor. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Addendum: I just wanted to point out one of the people I stated above were "experts" is in fact J. Marshall Shepherd, former president of THE American Meteorological Society. If the president of that society is not considered an expert, then I'd like to know who is. Controversial topic or not, we don't censor. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I wouldn't want to change a simple factual history of specific events organized by the date each occurred into a political article by adding somewhat WP:OFFTOPIC generality and opinions on a politically touchy topic. It also sniffs a bit of WP:SOAPBOX to me.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that I don't understand what you mean, it is a controversial topic, and we're not trying to tell the "truth" here (WP:NOTTRUTH is still a good essay); but could we not also include opposite views? Even Fox News reported that Biden linked it. In general, if something is controversial, we try to describe the controversy in a balanced way (WP:NPOV), we don't simply censor it away and pretend there's no controversy. We also rarely have events that don't include a sort of "reaction", "consequences" or "causes" section. @ would you really propose that events are treated as a completely uncommented timeline? "This happened, in that order, noone knows why, no one said anything about it, and we can't say if it had any long-term effect." (A little exaggerated, but I hope you get what I mean.) At least that's how I understand "a simple factual history of specific events organized by the date each occurred"; I might have misinterpreted it.
 * And I am really confused seeing this described as "off topic". How so? Which topic does it belong to then? Causes for the assassination of Caesar maybe? o.O --LordPeterII (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would like to point out two things: One, Fox News is in the process of being deprecated in the realm of politics/science (RS Noticeboard RfC) and two, Biden is not a degreed meteorologist. I don’t think that article from Fox News provides anything to this conversation. The sources linked in your initial support !vote do provide discussion, but not that. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another good point by you,, can't really disagree with that. I just meant to use this example to illustrate that there might be opposing views on the matter, which we could also feature to balance it out. While I knew that Fox News was biased (but then almost any newspaper is), I didn't know it was being deprecated. Huh. Unfortunately, this is a bad example then (and yeah not sure why they only cited Biden, not some other expert. There surely must be those with opposing views). If someone could find such a news, from a source that's usable, please post it here. It would help the discussion, I think. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fox News might not be deprecated. From the RFC it appears to be downgraded to generally unreliable, which is different from total deprecation (but then again, RFC closures have surprised me.) Please stop discussing what you think an RFC closed is, it borderline violates WP:CRYSTAL. 134.6.57.27 (talk) 17:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:LordPeterII - the article is "July–August 2022 United States floods" -- which is very narrow and specifically bound to the time July-August 2022 and the floods in the United States. I can see including the aftermath from those, but bringing in generic comments of wider topics (let alone politics and who to include seen above) just makes the advisory WP:OFFTOPIC seem correct where it says: "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information."  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I admit my reply was a bit snarky. I am trying to see it your way now, and it is a possibility, yes. However, I feel it is a worse article if left without context (climate change is just one of the possible causes, the most controversial one; there's also e.g. the topography which isn't mentioned, either, despite being a much more obvious and immediate reason). I do not see it as politics at all, citing senior professors in a number of different sources; but I guess since I don't live in the US, my judgement in that regard is more "international". --LordPeterII (talk) 12:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * User:LordPeterII - no worries. It seems just a transition to a topic other than the very specified one, for just a generic blurb.  Coverage might have also gone into historical comparisons or preparedness issues or topology info that could be at least specific to the location, but even there it’s getting further from being about the specific flooding.   People have a natural tendency to do (or mis-do) causation logic, be it correlation or recency effect or confirmation bias, but I think that adding generics has strayed too far.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Neutral to weak oppose for now, strongly support when academic paper is released  per Elijahandskip. Academic papers aren’t politicized, news sources can be. 134.6.57.27 (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as we have no reliable studies to cite at this time that tie climate change to these particular floods. —ADavidB 18:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support (as the editor who originally added this material). We have very good sourcing concurring that experts believe that global warming is likely to have made the floods more likely or more damaging. We have sourcing from The Courier-Journal, one of the most prestigious news organizations based in Kentucky (this link), the Washington Post, ABC News and a variety of other sources that long term consensus agrees are reliable. We have on-the-record quotes to that effect from Janey Camp, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Vanderbilt University, Jonathan Overpeck, who is a professor of climate science at the University of Michigan, Marshall Shepherd, professor and director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at the University of Georgia, Drew Shindell, professor of earth sciences at Duke University, Scott Denning, Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. To make sure there was no mistake, I looked up Twitter feeds of some of these academics where available to check if any felt they had been misquoted or misrepresented in the articles that quote them. None did. These news articles don't simply link everything blindly to climate change-for example the Courier-Journal article explicitly notes research that violent tornadoes don't seem to have been getting more frequent, whereas intense rainfall is getting more common. I'm sad that this has become an RfC. As I said further up in the talk thread, I have huge respect for, who has done a ton of work expanding this article, and I'd hoped that we could have worked out some text that we could have consensus on by discussion. But for me this comes down to the question of what our readers deserve from us-our readers deserve to have the right information they need to understand the world around them. If we leave information out of the article, that does them a disservice. Blythwood (talk) 11:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , you just brought up a good point, but also I would like to point something out. It appears every single one of those sources are from a RS Media news article, that cite a quote from a professor/meteorologist. Based on that logic, any professor could also say the statement that “Climate change is not responsible for these floods”, and we would have to take them up on their word. No data/research/evidence is shown in those statements. In my “Oppose for now” !vote, I pointed out that no data/research/evidence is the main problem with adding anything about climate change at the present time. I don’t disagree that this topic will easily be acceptable for the article in the future, but at the present time, there is no evidence/data (aka an academic paper or organization which did the research and data) that directly links or directly disproves climate change as being a reason/not a reason for the floods.  All we got are statements not backed by the data/evidence. Let’s wait until something about it is published in an academic paper (which normally takes a few months) then reassess the discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can see that line of argument...but here's the thing. We do not have sources from credible experts saying that climate change was not likely to have contributed to the flooding. We have specific information and links to research quoted, especially in the Courier-Journal, which cites specific data for increasing extreme rainfall, specific to Hazard, one of the worst-hit towns. If editors have specific concerns about the sources or experts I'm mentioning, we can discuss that on a case-by-case basis on the talk page. But when you have piles of sourcing agreeing that global warming did contribute to the floods, and as a counter...basically nothing, how is that an argument for leaving the expert consensus out? Blythwood (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Support although there should be detail on how specific or not the academics are, and it should also be mentioned if a formal Extreme event attribution has not been done. That way future editors will be reminded to check and add more specific studies later. Or indeed amend later to say if it was found not to be due to global warming. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for linking that article and bringing up this important point! I think such a formal attribution would indeed be neccessary if we wanted to state the climate change connection in WP:WIKIVOICE as a "fact". I believe that's not necessary simply for having attributed statements. Anyway, I think that a lack of formal attribution is what many of the "Oppose" votes are about, so it's good to know what the term is for that.
 * As I understand, that's also the reason why you changed your vote @? You are right then about a lack of attribution in this case; but I'd like to point out this much conflicting opinions are not present here: We have only sources where experts claim it is related, and none (!) who say the opposite. I've actually been desperately searching for dissenting views; but couldn't find any. If you could find some, that'd unironically be great! We could have a more blanced section in the article. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you found a source for this event great! I changed my vote because I wanted a source for this event in particular; if you found a source for this event, then I will definitely change my vote back to support. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think you misunderstood me: I meant to say that I had only found sources which do link this (event in particular) to climate change, but none who questions the link. In your new vote above, you said: They're appears to be a lot of conflicting opinions on this topic in general. Some say yes, others say no, and additional people say it is inconclusive. I meant to point out this is not the case. We simply don't have conflicting opinions in this case! If a source were to be found where someone disagrees, that would mean we could include it in the article, so as to better preserve NPOV. I would like that. But again: While there has been no formal attribution, also no one has disagreed and got published by a reliable source. – LordPickleII  ( talk ) 08:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I misworded that then. I was looking for sources for this event. I personally believe that climate change is what's causing this increase in catastrophic flooding events. However, the sources I was looking at for THIS SPECIFIC EVENT conflicted with each other albeit it was between mostly news sources. Again, I just wanted a definite source to THIS SPECIFIC EVENT before I changed back to support. If you've found that source, I would be happy to change back to support because it would go along with my idea anyway. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay but what news were you looking at then? I listed some in my vote post above, and all of these agree (on this event at least). Can you give a link to a newspaper article that doesn't? – LordPickleII ( talk ) 20:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was just a bunch of random sources after a Google search to be totally honest. I didn't really have a lot of time to look through them, so I don't remember which ones they were. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Support mentioning climate change. Mind the gap between "mentioning" and "claiming that it's absolutely proven to be the cause".  Another way to understand my vote is "Oppose excluding any and all mention of climate change from this article".  Multiple sources discuss possible causes of these floods, saying things like "Experts warn weather like extreme flooding and heat waves are some of the most immediate and noticeable impacts of climate change." This article should give a fair and comprehensive summary of all of the (non-tiny-minority) ideas that sources discuss, including climate change.  It would be silly to exclude all mention of possible risk factors or causes, and it would be silly to mention all of them except climate change.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Support discussing this in some form, since the sourcing seems to be extensive and high-quality. Also, I strenuously disagree with the assertions above that climate change is controversial or exceptional - among high-quality sources (which is what we care about) it is completely uncontroversial. Arguing that we should downplay something because of lower-quality sources or what random readers might think is essentially a form of WP:FALSEBALANCE. I want to single out Elijahandskip's rationale in particular as being a low-quality argument to the point where it is flatly not grounded in policy, and strongly urge the closer to disregard it or any arguments that cite it on that basis - we are flatly not permitted to simply decide for ourselves, based on our gut feelings or whatever blogs we read, that something is "controversial." This is an extremely well-established principle, and it is extremely well-established that climate change skepticism is a WP:FRINGE perspective, so arguments, like Elijahandskip's, that are based on that perspective or which give it credence are not acceptable. EDIT: Since I feel that this RFC began with a !vote overtly arguing a WP:FRINGE perspective, I have placed a (neutrally-worded / bare-template) notification on WP:FRINGEN. --Aquillion (talk) 18:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My dude, I am legit not saying climate change ain't real. In fact, if you actually bothered to fully read my statements, I said, "I don’t disagree that this topic will easily be acceptable for the article in the future, but at the present time, there is no evidence/data...that directly links or directly disproves climate change as being a reason/not a reason for the floods. For one, do not take my words out of context and two I am legit shocked that you are accusing me of basing this "on our gut feelings or whatever blogs we read." If you can find a single, source that is not only an expert or experts quoted statements that directly says, through research/data that "climate change caused/attributed to these floods" or "climate change did not cause/attribute to these floods", then that can be mentioned. Right now, this would be the exact same as if I myself got a meteorology degree (I don't have one but in college for one right now) and said "Climate change caused these floods" or "climate change did not cause these floods", then that would be enough evidence for Wikipedia to cite as a source. That alone sounds super silly as I might/might not have done research that normally takes weeks to months to do, but you would not know or ever see that research and just have to take my word on it. Based on that logic, could Wikipedia not cite any former US President's statements for the Politics article, as one could easily say they would be an expert politician or even one of the most powerful politicians of that time. Obviously not, but the same logic is being applied here. My exact statement said to wait, not to never post. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your statement was to "wait" on the basis of quotes like "climate change did not cause/attribute to these floods" which are quotes that are not at issue. Instead, you removed perfectly sourced quotes to experts at the height of reliability that were couched in exactly the way a reliable quote would be couched. "Wait" is not an appropriate response when reliably sourced material is being kept out of the article to support some sort of bizarre editorial philosophy. jps (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Seeing it explained in detail like this, I need to point out that your reasoning is flawed: We are explicitly allowed by policy to include attributed statements. We actually have several templates (e.g. Template:Attribution needed and Template:Who) that deal with cases where such attribution hasn't been done appropriately. Your counter-example is Politics, which is a general topic, and thus a more appropriate comparsion would be to Extreme weather, the overview article over all sorts of similar floods and events. The exact reasoning you applied for Politics applies there, and it would not be appropriate to merely have a statement by e.g. J. Marshall Shepherd there. But in the subsection, Extreme weather, we have exactly these scientific studies that you want; they are required there. However, the same requirement does not follow if you compare a specific political event, something that is roughly comparable with July–August 2022 United States floods – let's say the Thaddeus McCotter 2012 presidential campaign: Here we don't have only scientific literature as in Politics, but many statements like e.g. this: President George W. Bush referred to him as "that rock and roll dude." This example might not be perfect, but I hope my point gets across: We don't need rigorous scientific studies to include statements in most articles. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Reject the premise of the RfC. I see plenty of reliable sources which mention the fact that climate change increases the severity of flooding (among other extreme weather events) in direct relation to many of the events described in this article. Some are quoted in the responses to this very RfC. Having a blanket prohibition against including such content is an absurd editorial approach. If someone includes well-sourced content that connects climate change to these events, there is no reason for us to exclude such content. That some people find the ongoing global disaster of climate change "controversial" is not a reason to exclude such content. Arguing that we need to wait for attribution studies to be published in academic journals is also absurd. Many of the sources are interviewing acknowledged experts on these subjects. As long as the content does not go beyond the sources that we have on the subject, Wikipedia is well within its remit to include such content. There is no need for a Request for Comment to handle this when the question is so broad as this. If this had been properly formatted, it would have been on a specific edit request, for example. jps (talk) 20:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Making note: This user later stated that “my side won”, which does show some WP:BIAS as they believe this is a majority vote instead of consensus and agreement between editors. I am not saying their !vote is invalid, but saying the editor who made the comment may not understand the point or idea of the RfC. EDIT: Based on the comment below attempting to discredit my reply, I do believe their response should be invalid as they (1) do not even agree this is about adding climate change to the article and (2) have been told by myself and another editor that their edits are being disruptive. Aka, this editor has a strong opinion bias that is preventing them from making an accurate decision for this RfC (which again, they do not even say is about climate change/global warming…their own admission). Elijahandskip (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Making note, above user was banned from politics pages for promoting anti-Biden propaganda. This is consistent, interestingly, with his WP:ADVOCACY in working to eliminate mention of climate change in this article. jps (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you disagree with the RfC, but I invite you to participate nevertheless. It was my initiative, as one of the proponents of an inclusion, in order to bring other people into a discussion that didn't resolve into consensus. I share your view that this is an obvious case for inclusion, and that waiting on a specific scientific paper is far too high a hurdle; but let's please keep this civil and get this RfC through. I would much rather have a clear consensus, potentially as a precedent, than an aborted RfC that involved into a WP:NPA discussion. Just vote "Strong Support" instead ;)
 * As a side note, @ your reply above is malformed. I am unsure what exactly you wanted to strike, so I'll leave repairing it to you.
 * --LordPeterII (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not blame you, LordPeterII, for the RfC or the way this happened, but I think what happened was that you were railroaded in an unfortunate fashion. Your edit should not have been reverted and there is no sense in drawing out this discussion. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your approach is well-cited, obviously based in the best research Wikipedia would ask for, and represents the finest that we would ask for in editing. There was no need for a broad-based RfC like this, but it did not escape my notice that there is a group of editors here who seem intent on railroading a kind of approach that would exclude your work. We now have this group arguing that the RfC needs to remain open for 30 days even as I think it is obvious what needs to be done. What's the point of continuing in this fashion? The consensus is clear: statements that talk about climate change and global warming should not be excluded from the article. jps (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are getting very argumentative and aggressively involved here randomly. Are you trying to accomplish some agenda? You seem to be very hostile toward myself and Elijahandskip over a seemingly minor disagreement on a Wikipedia issue. United States Man (talk) 21:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely have an agenda. It's one that opposes the somewhat unfortunate misperception that the effects of climate change are somehow "controversial" or "biased" or "political" to include in articles where we have sources that say such things are directly related to the subject of the article. That's my agenda. What I see from you are a number of claims that the sources being discussed are biased. That definitely raises alarm bells for me. jps (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If the topic isn't political, why is it a frequent point of contention in politics? The true agenda is that you show up to randomly push your side of the political agenda and any pushback from anyone already here was met with edit warring and argument from you. As this is off topic, it will be my last comment. United States Man (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The body politic, as it were, can and does discuss all manner of things that are not strictly political. Anything can be made political. The question at issue here is whether statements by experts who say that severe weather events like these particular floods are made more severe and more likely by climate change are political statements. They are manifestly not. This is much the same way that a biologist who says that "Humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor" is not making a political statement in spite of some religious folk thinking that this fact is incorrect and even engaging in political debate over whether or not such facts can be discussed, taught, or explained as facts. jps (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @jps: I should note that I am not the author of the original content that was removed, that was . I only stumbled upon the article (idk how anymore, random Wikipedia stroll), and agreed with the need for a discussion after Blythwood's edit was removed (was bordering on an edit war), which ended in a stalemate because there were so few participants. Back then, I saw three options: "Overrule" and start an all-out edit war, secretly WP:CANVASS people to aid in the discussion, or start a RfC which would hopefully result in a support. I opted for the latter, because the other options would have led nowhere. I must say I was concerned about the number of initial "oppose" votes, angry even, because they were based on really bad reasons. But I intended to see this through, and if needed, start yet another RfC to discuss whether we actually "need scientific papers for everything", or if we "can't have attributed statements about controversial topics" (if you even deem them controversial). An RfC would not have been needed, yes, if only you and I had been present in the beginning, or at least several more editors. But even with an obvious expected result, the RfC was the only way for me (at least the only one I saw) to draw attention to this topic, and to get consensus on such trivial a thing. This RfC doesn't have to stay open for 30 days, but it needs to stay open until a consensus has formed, now that it was started. With the recent influx of Support votes, and the remaining poor quality of oppose reasons (it's not a vote after all, and demanding something that is not supported by policy is not a strong point to make), I don't think this will need 30 days. But please, don't interrupt the process – I know you mean well, and I appreciate it, but I don't believe it is going to help. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) My last comment on this specific topic (because I want to get back to creating my larger list articles and draft articles and don't want to be in any further discussions for a while) is the statement "If ongoing events are any indication, the question of human-induced climate change is likely to remain open for the foreseeable future." That was an exact phrase taken from an academically published paper in 2018 titled To Err is Human: Pondering the Undoing of Human-Induced Climate Change, which is where they discuss the 4 possible mentalities toward the topic. You asked for a reason why myself and other editors do not fully align our mentality toward yours on this topic, so I give you a paper that would explain why we do not agree with you. We match one of the other 4 possible mentalities than you do. Everyone matches one of those 4 mentalities. Good paper to read, as it isn't about whether human-induced climate change is real or not, but rather how the 4 different mentalities toward it came about and what they are. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Scientific consensus is not determined by one sentence in one paper, let alone one sentence in one paper that is not even about the subject at hand. Scientific consensus is determined by the totality of evidence. There is a reason our article Cherrypicking gives examples where climate change deniers use that invalid method. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Obviously Support per ample sources provided by LordPeterII and Blythwood. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. We have enough reliable sources making the connection and zero reliable sources saying there is no connection. This should be a no-brainer. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, because Wikipedia bases content on what sources say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Sources say so, so we should too. -- Jayron 32 15:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support with sources that make the direct link that the severity and prevalence of these floods are believed to be a result of climate change. I find it odd that this article about multiple otherwise independent flooding events would exist in the first place, if not to discuss the highly notable proposed root cause linking them. While sources will only get stronger over time, let's not make perfect the enemy of good. This is not some fringe explanation, we should apply WP:VNT. Bakkster Man (talk) 15:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Scientific American is what does it for me. Yes, climate change increases the risks of floods in general, and news sources mention this after describing these particular floods, but I'm generally very skeptical of non-specialist media reporting on science. Unless the news source can concretely claim "This is an instance where a flood may not have occurred or had the same severity had the climate not warmed 1.2 °C", it's not relevant enough. However, the Scientific American source does analyze how and why climate change may have affected these particular floods. Current scientific insight into the cause of the floods is clearly important information for the article. — Bilorv ( talk ) 19:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll leave this open for a few days longer, but it seems the favour is very clearly in favour of inclusion. Unless that changes again, I will request a closure before a full 30 days have passed. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 18:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Clarification: By "leave open" I ofc meant to let discussion go on without doing anything else. As I am involved, I cannot close the RfC myself, I will only request it to be. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 18:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The information has already been on the page for literally several days. Just let it go and put it to rest lol. United States Man (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will request closure now. – LordPickleII ( talk ) 07:39, 9 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak support, as long as it's not explicitly stated that climate change is the only thing causing these floods, just that it may be a contributing factor.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

August 12 Las Vegas flash floods
We should probably add them to the article, especially because 2 people were killed. 64.25.27.224 (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2022 (UTC)