Talk:Storm Daniel

Harmonizing
Please discuss at Talk:Derna_dam_collapses. fgnievinski (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Deaths
Read in the text of the document (page 6) where it says estimated for the 10,000 deaths. Noah, AATalk 13:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think with this case it is best to go by "official estimate" since this is what the official report on Daniel says. The death toll stopped being updated a while ago and this is obviously a Nargis-esque coverup on the part of the Libyan authorities. Their figure cannot be trusted IMO. We should use the figures given by reputable sources in the official tropical cyclone report. Maybe a side note with the Libyan estimate. Undescribed (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That report is NOT and I repeat NOT official. There is no RSMC and it is simply done by a meteorologist on his own. WP does not exist to right wrongs. We go with the official and most widely adopted totals which come from the Libya government and subsequently the UN. Besides, it clearly states it is estimated and not confirmed. To say otherwise is WP:OR. Noah, AATalk 15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well maybe there needs to be an RSMC for the Mediterranean Sea then, has anybody thought of that? So that issues like this dont arise? 4,333 dead and over 10,000 missing, a figure which hasn't been updated by the UN in weeks, why is that? Also, I would trust the UN figures over the Libyan authorities figures anyways. The (unofficial) estimate of the dead is 18,000 to 20,000 unless I am missing something? It says so right in the article. That many people just disappear and nobody talks about it? Will we ever know what the actual death toll is? Everyone cares more about an attack in Israel that killed a fraction of the people that Daniel did. That's politics for ya! Smh Undescribed (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Update the map
If there was actual proof that it underwent tropical cyclonegenesis, then prove it. 2605:8D80:408:1AF4:C569:6156:7660:4183 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Refer to the "Source for Daniel being a tropical cyclone?" discussion on the issue. It must remain this way until an independent study from a reputable source comes out. And no CMISS and Metoffice do not count one bit. HavocPlayz (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * NHC- A tropical cyclone is a warm-core system with a circulation of maximum winds closed around a well-defined center, with convection in the center, without fronts, developed over tropical and subtropical waters of the planet. Daniel's structure fits precisely into this description even without proving it with sources. It also presented convective and outflow bands.
 * http://medicanes.altervista.org/Tropical_storm_cyclone_tempesta_ciclone_Daniel_mediterranean_3688.webp
 * Subtropical cyclones are warm-core cyclones, with wider wind circulations and often connected to fronts. Daniele italy (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a reliable source.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Update to 'Meteorological history'
For such a historic storm the section is severely lacking, especially since we have plenty of data to work with (as well as now a TC report from David Hernes ) Thoughts? Ikethecatto (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It’s called denialism. Sources exist but people are in denial. 2605:8D80:401:FE2E:25E9:A22E:35A9:4A2 (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a reliable source. It's self-published.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * " Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". David Hernes is very reliable and has worked with EUMETSAT on mediterranean TCs
 * Ikethecatto (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

The death toll (again)
So as of 24.10.23 the death toll figure provided in the infobox is 11,000+. However, the three sources supposed to corroborate the number does not mention this figure or they are now obsolete. Yes, the situation with the deaths confirmation is deplorable, but for the lack of updates from reliable sources I would suggest that the lower figure of 4,000+ deaths be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * When that figure has been blatantly shown to be astronomically underrepresentative of the true deathtoll from that disaster, and that it is a figure being knowingly and intentionally pushed by corrupt administrations trying to cover up for the disaster they are in part responsible for, then no. I cannot support using this lower figure. As it is a clear and blatant lie. It is an untruth. I suggest going with the estimates, and estimates alone. 2.98.194.37 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)