Talk:Political impact of Hurricane Sandy

Original research
Some, not all, of the material being added is not directly related to this so called controversy. That constitutes original research. Hopefully wiser heads will prevail, but I guess we'll see. I am not doing to edit this article again. Good luck. --Malerooster (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, great, now the "scope" of the article has changed so more "material" can be added? I still want to see Seamus the dog worked into the article, then it will be complete. --Malerooster (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it is original research. Both McCain's response and Brown's response are relevant to the article, at least with the current scope. Casprings (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Their responses have nothing to do with this. Brown, especially has nothing to do with it as the article does not even mention Romney.  You are creating synthesis of material by making a connection which does not exist.  You are putting forth an idea which is not expressly made in the source, namely that Brown's statement futhered this farce of a controversy.  Arzel (talk) 03:21, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia article
Does someone really think this is a Wikipedia article? Why is it not already deleted? Mugginsx (talk) 09:17, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

NPOV in title and in text
The title states, in WP's voice that the issue of FEMA funding (and its politicization in the wake of Sandy) is a)solely a Romney issue, and b) a "controversy" worthy of an Article. NPOV would require mention of the cuts proposed by Romney's opponent, cuts which could arguably be the 4% specifically proposed or the $900 million cuts resulting from the Presidentially suggested Sequestration coming in January. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama agreed to a 3% cut to the FEMA budget. However, he agreed to it because the Republicans in Congress wanted it. As long as that is added, I have no problem putting in a sourced sentence. However I think the title stands. It is his opinions and positions that got coverage and made it WP:N, not the President.Casprings (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Revision regarding rename
With the rename of the article much has to be removed as obvious original research. I have done so. Arzel (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL
Regarding, please observe CRYSTAL:


 * Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims (for films, see WP:NFF). In particular:...

It should be apparent from this that citing sources about the potential effects of the hurricane on the election is appropriate. I should add that in this particular case there is very little difference between "speculation" and "history" - we're not magically going to know how many people were deterred by the hurricane after the election, even if the sources have a few more numbers to crunch. In a sense, the forward-looking predictions are actually more reliable, because they won't be trying to explain the numbers post hoc, but are putting down their hypotheses in black and white for subsequent evaluation when the results come in. Wnt (talk) 00:53, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Your own words betray you. You are basically arguing that we need to present a crystal ball because it might be more reliable than the historical view.  Aside from that very strange logic, you are actively violating crystal and presenting the information as a moving current news event.  This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper, why do you feel the need to use WP as a newspaper?  Let the events unfold and then put them into the correct article (not this contrived one which will likely be deleted anyway).  Arzel (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

 * Political ramifications of Hurricane Sandy + Political impact of Hurricane Sandy

This article and political impact of Hurricane Sandy are two articles on the same topic, but both articles have different content that should be merged. I note the current AFD discussion also proposes that this article, in turn, be merged with one or two others. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * That would be fairly pointless in my opinion. This article is now a watered-down version of the original and now only includes a few disparate notes which have already been included in their respective articles (most seem to have been copied from them in fact). Merging content from this article into political impact of Hurricane Sandy would have little, if any, value at all. The original of this article was a pile of POV-pushing WP:SYNTH rubbish and the only reason it now contains next to no content is that other editors have, quite rightly, taken steps to stop the rot. Go ahead and merge if you wish but you'll find there's not much of value to take from this article now and insert in that one. Best just to let this one be deleted and spend you time and effort working to ensure the other one doesn't go the same way. Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have no interest in either article. My note above was purely administrative. A speedy deletion tag was placed on the other article on the grounds that the content of each was substantially the same, and when I found the two articles weren't similar, I declined the speedy deletion nomination. I re-tagged it for a merge, posting the note above as is standard procedure. Do with it as you like. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you and I are in the same place - I'm Australian and couldn't care less about the US election. The article showed up at AFD and I commented from there. The POV got acutely worse in response and then progressively better as other editors got involved. It is sorting itself out. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC).


 * Support MERGE NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of how POV or not this article is, there is DEFINITELY no need for two articles with titles with the same meaning (political impact = political ramifications). First merge, and then discuss deletion or improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 04:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - there is absolutely no reason we need both of these articles. They should be merged. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - No real preference as to which is the primary name of the article as long as one redirects to the other. Go   Phightins  !  04:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Merge. and, since this is the second article, THIS one should be merged to the OTHER. Should also bear in mind that, editing Wednesday, most of this will have to be deleted as wrong, and the request for a hearing by the minority is a statement with no impact; it will with certainty never happen. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This article existed first, I believe. Go   Phightins  !  04:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First in time works for water rights in Colorado but we should merge the weaker into the stronger article. I believe the other is the stronger article.  Bring any unique NPOV and RS info from here to that one.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Support - with the understanding that there seems to be a fair bit of support for deleting this article at the associated AFD anyway. If it remains, I have no problem with any remaining (different) content being merged from this article over to the other (even though this one was started first). Obviously no need for both. Just not sure anything from this one is worth keeping. But... whatever. Stalwart 111  (talk) 07:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - I have merged the material from this article into political impact of Hurricane Sandy as others have suggested. That article is kind of disorganized although I made an attempt to group things under logical headings. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Election day stupidity...
A brand new WP:SPA IP editor showed up to reframe the entire Effect on campaigning section into what now amounts to Romney: Bad, Obama: Good by over-emphasising two particular sources. An obvious WP:WEIGHT issue. It has now become akin to the same POV-pushing rubbish this article started with. Have tagged it - hopefully this article will be deleted anyway and/or people will lose interest in vadalising after tomorrow (today for you Americans). Stalwart 111  (talk) 11:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Globalize tag removal
I removed the globalize maintenance tag because, to my knowledge, the U.S. was the only country that Sandy affected that had an election going on. If someone can show me a source that says Bermuda's parliament didn't meet or something, I suppose that could be added, but Sandy affected the U.S. the most severely, especially since the U.S. is in the midst of a presidential election. Thus, I've started this discussion per the WP:BRD model. Go  Phightins  !  18:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That tag was a remnant of merging two articles. I would have removed it myself for the rationale you provided, but I forgot about it. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Political impact of Hurricane Sandy → Political impact of Hurricane Sandy in the United States – The US is not the only place where storms can have political impact. It does not matter if there is an ongoing election at the time, as can be seen from Hurricane Katrina, which did not occur during an election, but nevertheless impacted the political life of Louisiana. This article deals solely with the political impact in the US, not of anywhere else. There's nothing about political corruption and related storm damage from countries outside the US. The current title indicates a WP:Systematic bias of considering only the US. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 08:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose disambiguation isn't needed at this time.  Hot Stop     (Edits)   16:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Comment it's not disambiguation, WP:ASTONISH, there is no content here outside the US, so the title does not match the contents of the article. Presenting the US as the entirety of the area affected by Sandy is misleading. (or this article is missing a POV notice) -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you name any other area outside the United States where Hurricane Sandy had a political impact? If not, then there is no POV issue. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would agree that if the hurricane had no impact on the politics of any other country there is no need to add United States regardless or whether or not other countries were in the path of the storm. Also due to these factors I don't see a case for bias. Even if there was evidence that the politics of other countries were significantly effected the way to deal with that would be to expand the article to include the other countries and even in that case there would be no reason for a name change.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Support please read http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/02/hurricane-sandy-hit-caribbean-media
 * In Jamaica, winds left 70% of residents without electricity, blew roofs off buildings, killed one, and caused about $55.23 million (2012 USD) in damage.
 * In Haiti, Sandy's outer bands brought flooding that killed at least 52, caused food shortages, and left about 200,000 homeless.
 * In the Dominican Republic, two died.
 * In Puerto Rico, one man was swept away by a swollen river.
 * In Cuba, there was extensive coastal flooding and wind damage inland, destroying some 15,000 homes, killing 11, and causing $2 billion (2012 USD) in damage.
 * In The Bahamas, two died amid an estimated $300 million (2012 USD) in damage.
 * It's pretty obvious that there will be political impact in these little countries, but because America is more important, and editors from these islands are busy looking for post-hurricane clean drinking water rather than editing wikipedia, wp isn't picking it up. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL much? When people start discussing such political impacts in Caribbean nations, then we should move it (or include the information here).    Hot Stop     (Edits)   05:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need a crystal ball to look outside the USA.
 * So where in this articles does this go


 * Okay if I start adding the Haiti domestic politics section to this article right now? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A fear of unrest isn't unrest.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose I see no reason that this page should be restricted to the United States. Political impact on Haiti, Bahamas, etc. can be included here too. Or is every state going to now have a separate political impact page?  Walrasiad (talk) 09:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, in the section above the requested move, it's claimed that the US is the only impacted place that should be documented in this article, so the POV tag (globalize) was removed for that reason. If that's the case, then the article is misnamed. If that isn't the case, then the tag should not have been removed, since there was political impact elsewhere. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 09:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That comment you referenced is a red herring. It was based on there being no impact, but if sources say there was an impact, it should be added here.   Hot Stop     (Edits)   13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, disambiguation is not needed. Per WP:PRECISION, "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". More importantly, nothing speaks against expanding the article scope to include international political impact. --87.79.105.235 (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, currently it's not disambiguation, WP:ASTONISH, there is currently no content here outside the US, so the title does not match the contents of the article. Are we to add it or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You know that's an essay you're citing, right?  Hot Stop     (Edits)   13:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, no, actually I didn't know, I should have realised it contains too much common sense to have entered canon as a guideline. :( Anyway, have you decided which you want, Haiti ahead of US in the lede, or US in the title? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why should the title be overspecific and clumsy when Political impact of Hurricane Sandy is specific enough? The specifying addition of "in the United States" is not necessary to disambiguate it (=distinguish it) from any other topics/articles. The addition of "in the United States" might just as well be a normal disambiguator (i.e. Political impact of Hurricane Sandy (United States)"), that's why I used the term "disambiguation" in my original comment. ASTONISH has no connection or relevance to my argument. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Our effects articles are not so named, since they're named like Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New Jersey not Effects of Hurricane Sandy (New Jersey) -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose WP:SOFIXIT. The proposed title would be appropriate for a split, but right now, it would only limit this article. If you want to fight systemic bias, increase coverage of less covered topics—don't straitjacket existing articles to prevent such inclusion. --BDD (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose – use a "split" proposal later if it turns out that there's too much political impact to include in one article. Dicklyon (talk) 05:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose even if we take Jamaica into account (no evidence though) unless there is a plan to create a separate Political impact of Hurricane Sandy in Jamaica I see no reason not to add the Jamaica info here and keep the current title. The article is not that long so I see no reason for a split even if we decided to do that.--174.93.171.10 (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a split-out article to Hurricane Sandy, so shouldn't all political impact exist at Hurricane Sandy, except where it is too long (ie. USA). After all, the Effects of Hurricane Sandy article does not exist, while several regional articles do. Effects of Hurricane Sandy in the United States doesn't exist either (it redirects to the main article), but there are ones for Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York. -- 70.24.186.245 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose move until we know if the U.S. is the only country that is notably politically impacted by Hurricane Sandy. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment in the above section regarding the removal of the globalize tag. Go   Phightins  !  02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * In view of the topical nature of this article both the 2 options (1) the globalize tag, and (2) an article-side move tag to limit to US, should be added to the article-side header until it is decided whether to (1) include political impact in Haiti or (2) limit to US. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a separate discussion. Let's focus this section on just the move request itself and not get sidetracked. --84.44.230.14 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Defer and improve and move early next year if the article is still only about the United States. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  20:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changed section title from "Global warming" to "Climate change"
I changed the title of this section to be consistent with its text.

The two politicians who signed the letter may be using the words "climate change" in the sense of global warming rather than climate change. I'll leave it up to more meteorologically and politically experienced editors than me to decide if this is the case. If it is, then the section should be renamed and the content re-written so that it's clear what the political impact of Hurricane Sandy really is.

A reminder to new editors: Articles surrounding climate change, global warming, and the like are contentious and are heavily monitored. New editors are encouraged to read the talk pages of both articles, particularly the section at the very top that mentions "Wikipedia general sanctions," before making significant edits regarding these topics. The same caution should be taken with the Global warming/Climate change section of this article. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  02:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)