Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 14 September 2019

[edit]
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: consensus to not move. Whether it should be moved to a title without a dash is a spare matter to discuss, but there's no consensus here to move to a different title, especially one with "scandal" at this stage. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 03:59, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy → Hurricane Dorian–Alabama scandal – Given that there are investigations of impropriety (vis a vis threats to fire employees at NOAA), it seems that it is beyond a controversy, and more at the level of a scandal. Banana Republic (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some WP:Reliable sources that use the word scandal:

Banana Republic (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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.
  • As of now, oppose. Not a clear need at the current time, and just because there are investigations doesn't change the fact that nothing has happened yet. If this escalates further, then open to reassessing. Master of Time (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. Same with Master of Time's reason. Additionally, controversy is more appropriate. But if the NOAA officials will be heavily investigated, I think that would be the right time to change this page's title from a 'controversy' to a 'scandal'. Vida0007 (talk) 05:32, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This issue is far overrated in the first place, and calling it a scandal will only exaggerate the focus on a minor issue. If this is a scandal, we need a serious clarification on what isn't a scandal, since this issue ought to have been over, done, and dusted when Birmingham's weather department said that Alabama was not going to be affected. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Too soon. An important article IMO and well done, but we need to see how this all pans out before we label it a scandal (...and I doubt that's going to happen since there have been so many others...). Gandydancer (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - Non-NPOV wording and I don't think this should have been created in the first place. See my reasoning below if you want to discuss potential deletion. Jdcomix (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I personally think that this article should be deleted entirely. There isn't too much here that can't just be condensed into a section on the main Dorian article. Jdcomix (talk) 22:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Let's stop making a big deal out of every single thing Donald Trump does. As this article's content is obviously related to Hurricane Dorian, there's no reason this article's material can't go there. We need to resist the urge to write one in-depth analysis after another about every one of Trump's mistakes. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:31, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do not agree. This has received extensive attention and is of additional significance because of the NOAA statement. Master of Time (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Consensus was reached on the Dorian article for making this a page, and IMO we shouldn't be constantly relitigating that. Agree with Master of Time as well. Rainclaw7 (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SelfieCity: The majority of comments on the original Dorian talk section (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian#/talk/14) appear to support the content being kept/moved to this page. Additionally, I question the logic of reverting all the way back to a section of the Dorian article at this point and possibly then returning to discussions on removing it entirely, especially considering part of the issue was that the section had "outgrown" the Dorian article. Rainclaw7 (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Rainclaw7: Sorry, that link isn't working for me. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 00:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SelfieCity:Try this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hurricane_Dorian#Sub_topic_"Alabama_controversy"_should_be_removed. .Rainclaw7 (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, so that looks to me like someone plunged forward and wrote something. I may be wrong, however. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 01:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that's similar to WP:BOLD. Rainclaw7 (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it looks like it is. Anyway, boldness does not mean consensus. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:40, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just because someone was bold doesn't invalidate the existing consensus, which even though it isn't a vote was majority in favor. The redirect discussion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_5#Sharpiegate) also seems to support this article existing due to the coverage extending beyond that week, even though at that time they didn't support it. Rainclaw7 (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's the consensus I'm not seeing. Discussions that go into various discussions, on tangents, are not necessarily consensus for what you want. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 20:08, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.

June 2020 report

[edit]

Evaluation of NOAA’s September 6, 2019, Statement About Hurricane Dorian Forecasts; FINAL REPORT NO. OIG-20-032-I; June 26, 2020 (see also https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/06/30/noaa-sharpiegate-inspector-general-report/) Mapsax (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status on third report?

[edit]
A third investigation being done by a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has not yet been released.

What's causing the delay in releasing the third report? Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this out of date? Why has it not been updated? Why would it take three years to investigate this potential federal crime? Viriditas (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updated due to no response. Viriditas (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hurricane Dorian hit Alabama afterall?

[edit]
This is not a forum. And no, Dorian never impacted Alabama. 🌀 Hurricane Clyde 🌀 (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

The article should address whether the path of Hurricane Dorian eventually did cross over to Alabama. 2001:8003:232A:E601:4D89:1F2E:40E6:B308 (talk) 16:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

18 U.S. Code § 2074 - False weather reports

[edit]

 Done Source:

Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the Government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Did Trump commit a federal crime? Lots of sources discuss this law. Why is it not mentioned in the article? Time, etc. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added to body and lead. Viriditas (talk) 10:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be late, should the decision made in Trump v. United States (2024) that the president has absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. Eason Y. Lu (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Be also included as part of the text? Eason Y. Lu (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed

[edit]
Alvin Bragg and Fani Willis are reported to be investigating potential criminal violations by President Trump.

I removed this content here. Not exactly clear why it was added or what it has to do with this subject. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dorian–Alabama_controversy&oldid=1243925067"