Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Otis

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

Possible damage estimation

[edit]

https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexico-clears-up-wreckage-hurricane-otis-counts-cost-damage-2023-10-26/

"The government has so far not estimated the cost of Otis, but Enki Research, which tracks tropical storms and models the cost of their damage, saw it "likely approaching $15 billion.""

I'm not sure about it's notability, but it might be usable for a damage estimate. Mobius Gerig (talk) 22:19, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait till the government's estimate comes out or some new source comes out with a preliminary estimate to put a damage cost (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CoreLogic has put out an estimated range only for insurable wind damage of $10-15 billion https://www.corelogic.com/intelligence/blogs/hazard-hq/category-5-hurricane-otis-acapulco-landfall/. This does not account for the whole cost, but perhaps this will be a good enough source to put damage at $10 billion+ MCRPY22 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @TC Animates: The $15 billion is not a direct damage estimate. The sources I see fall short of claiming explicitly that $15 billion worth of property damage has occurred and therefore it is not possible for us to make bold claims like it being the most expensive Mexico or Pacific hurricane yet (WP:NOR).--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jasper Deng: I set the damage as >1 billion per the Reuters source stating Otis caused billions in damage. I feel that would be a good starting point here and can always be changed later as new information comes out. Noah, AATalk 12:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew as see also

[edit]

@AveryTheComrade: Andrew is the only other Category 5 hurricane to impact such a large metropolitan area at Category 5 intensity. Both were small but powerful storms of very similar size and both caused similarly devastating impacts. Your "totally irrelevant" does not stand up to scrutiny. Jasper Deng (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the only things necessary for a storm to be relevant to Otis are "Category 5" and "struck a large metropolitan area as a category 5" then there are at least a dozen more storms that can be added to See Also. AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Give another example where a Cat 5 struck a densely populated area with many high-rise buildings. Andrew also was extremely similar meteorologically, much more so than other Category 5 hurricanes: exact same winds at landfall, pressure only one millibar different, very similar size.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Masters: "This means that the most heavily developed areas of Acapulco (population just over 1 million) received the more powerful right-front winds of Otis, perhaps setting a record for the largest number of people ever to experience the eyewall of a Cat 5 storm. The only comparable case may be Hurricane Andrew of 1992, which hit South Florida as a Cat 5 with 165 mph winds." No other storm meets that criterion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Andrew should be included in the "See also" section, but how about Hurricane David and Typhoon Angela? Shouldn't they be included as well, given the fact that those two tropical cyclones were both Category 5s when they crossed Santo Domingo and Metro Manila respectively? Vida0007 (talk) 08:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, because neither brought the core to the downtown skyline, and they were not as meteorologically similar.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

80 deaths listed

[edit]

I can only find sources stating that there have been 27 deaths from Hurricane Otis. Tajjc (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it back to 27 deaths as there is no reliable source for the updated death toll, and left a hidden note for future updating. Tails Wx 15:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Spanish wikipedia page on Hurricane Otis. It also says there have been 80 deaths but the link to the source is broken. Tajjc (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the link: [1]. It states that there's an additional 50 deaths, but that seems unofficial given that when translated to English, it states "casting doubt on the Mexican government's official figure, which reports only 27 people killed by the storm." In my opinion, I would update when the additional deaths are officially confirmed, but it seems like it isn't for now. Tails Wx 15:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems to be in line with Wikipedia guidelines. Tajjc (talk) 15:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so far we have one reliable source but that only goes to 39 zoey (trooncel) 19:08, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty that are merely parroting the government figures, which I've updated for, but if they do so we have to do so as well (WP:DUE).--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At first the casualties section was appropriately written with sources explicitly saying reported deaths were not included in official tolls. However, since then there have been updates to the official tally and assumptions are being made that the reported deaths are still being excluded from the 48 confirmed deaths. We cannot say the 50 reported bodies recovered from the ocean are not part of the 48 confirmed if we don't have explicit confirmation of this. The passage of time has rendered that assumption invalid. This applies to all reported deaths that were made before updates to certified deaths. The certification process for deaths is known to take time. We can still include mention of reported deaths but they must be given appropriate context of when they were reported in relation to official tolls. We cannot make a statement of total deaths adding up reported deaths on top of the official tally, it's a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason bodies would not be reported until they are identified, considering there will be many that won't be, so there is no reason these will be only included in part by the government. Therefore, as 50 > 48, it is mathematically impossible for the rescuers' story to have been included and given that the 16 hospital deaths were of a cause different from water suffocation (drowning; that's what the government has described it as), they can't possibly have been included either. WP:CALC, adding the numbers without giving a verdict on whether it is likely to be correct, is perfectly reasonable.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an incredible leap to assume not a single person of those 50, reported when the official toll was 27, have not been included in the 48. The numbers are not mutually exclusive and without the source explicitly saying none of the 50 deaths have been confirmed you cannot make a separate "unofficial" tally. The 50 bodies recovered do not have a marked cause of death, they were just found in the water which can happen from various means in a multifaceted natural disaster. WP:CALC does not apply without ample confirmation that the numbers are mutually exclusive. Just because 50 is greater than 48 it does not mean the 50 is entirely separate from the 48. The hospital deaths are a different situation as those were outright denied by the government. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an incredible assumption by any means. In a plane crash, the death toll is given before anyone is identified (and thus certified) dead. Since @CarterStormTracking: was originally in favor of this, they should also weigh in, but you're going to need a change of consensus to remove it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is without an explicit statement that none of the 50 deaths were officially confirmed in the three days since they were reported. You're inherently assuming that none are included because X is greater than Y. That's not a valid argument when context is of utmost importance here. The reported deaths from a plane crash are an entirely different situation as there is a definitive list of potential victims and simple math can be used. That is not the case here with over 1 million people affected. You cannot compare the two. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:39, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The NPR article says they're not counted in the official tally. This is definitely comparable as a subincident of the disaster that happened at one place and time. Combined with media-reported skepticism of the official tallies, and your oft-ignored fact that there is quite literally no reason not to count the 50 (actually 70) bodies in whole, your argument does not stand. At this point, unless the others in this thread agree, your only option is a WP:3O.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The cited NPR article states the 50 were not included as of October 28 when the Government reported 27 deaths. Since then there have been another 21 certified deaths. The information is outdated, full stop. There has to be evidence that states none of the 50 deaths confirmed at the time of this discussion are included in the 48. You're making a further assumption that none of the 20 deaths seen by the person in the NPR article were included in the 50 reported "across the city". The article does not mention "70" at any point. And even then, the information will once again be outdated once the official toll updates. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is still not mathematically possible for them to have been included because they would've all been included. Once the official death toll reaches something where that is no longer the case (i.e. at least 77), then there's an argument to be made that it's outdated; until then, there is not. It's unlikely we are going to agree; wait until others comment to proceed further.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're assuming mutual exclusivity without clear evidence. You're also making an assumption that the death certification process happens in bulk and all 50 bodies were processed and certified at the same time. Bodies can arrive at the morgue simultaneously and be certified at different times. The report doesn't even say the bodies were sent to a morgue, they just said they were found. There are far too many uncertainties and pieces to make such a claim with such confidence. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We could say it was unknown at the time how many (if any) of the 50 deaths may be included in the official government figure. Tajjc (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to side with @Cyclonebiskit here. It's not right to (A) make the assumption that various unofficial tallies of body recoveries do not overlap or to (B) sum them up and present it as an alternative possible death toll, even outside the lead for the infobox. More clarity regarding casualties will likely come with time. All the arguing and calculation will probably be redundant in a few days. Penitentes (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a sensible stance, and as always care should be taken to faithfully represent reported information. There is no detailed enumeration of who and where the fatalities were, and cause of death, as Cyclonebiskit (talk · contribs) saliently identified. Adding the counts of recovered bodies which may or may not overlap with the official death toll is a simple exercise in WP:CALC, but its placement here to suggest that they add in a mutually exclusive manner to a death toll of 141 (which is not listed anywhere) violates WP:SYNTH. As an aside, a quick glance at the source for unofficial report by a Mexican soldier saying his unit had recovered 1 body and that local officials recovered 6 others does not explicitly indicate whether these were part of the "official" death toll. —TheAustinMan(Talk ⬩ Edits) 20:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suitable high-resolution images of damage

[edit]

Regarding damage(s): does anyone have a source that could provide suitable images for use on Wikimedia Commons? I would think that a subject of this magnitude would warrant one or two good images of the impact in Acapulco and its environs. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the photographers of images you've seen and ask them if they'd be willing to upload the images to Commons. You are almost certainly not going to find public domain or Creative Commons images anywhere. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would the 1.7 billion spent in relief count towards dmg totals in $?

[edit]

do we mention it in the $ damage totals as "≥ 1.7 billion (USD)" ? there are already sources for the amount being used and it's mentioned in the article zoey (trooncel) 23:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relief is relief.. it's not damage Noah, AATalk 00:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 12-hour record fastest.

[edit]
Chart of Hurricane Otis

The 12 hour explosion intensify record was never mentioned in the article, can someone write them? Vệ Thần - Talk 06:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? AveryTheComrade (talk) 06:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acording to the US Naval Research Laboratory, there seemes to be 18 houors of explosion intensity from 10/24 12:00 to 10/25 6:00.―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Phoenix7777: Sorry, "explosion intensity" is not a thing here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Klotzbach is a source. Not sure it is notable enough to be mentioned though, and in any case this record will not stand in post-analysis since 12z was revised upwards to 65 knots, cutting the intensification from 70 to 60 knots, and probably less in post-analysis.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced intro

[edit]

The intro paragraphs are lacking some sources IMO, only having one that I've added at the moment. But I feel like most sources should be able to be found elsewhere in the article? Karagone 🗨 15:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Karagone: Leads are not required to be sourced, given that the content is sourced elsewhere within the article. Noah, AATalk 15:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that makes sense, my apologies Karagone 🗨 15:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

@Truthanado: There is nothing in MOS:DATE that requires us to redundantly repeat the year in every single date on this page. In fact, the MOS page gives examples of dates without years. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in that WP:DATE doesn't require a year in a date. In fact, all of the "WP:" and "MOS:" articles are guidelines, not requirements. However, if someone were to read only a portion of the article that contains dates without the years, or extract it for use somewhere else (in this case, say an article like Pacific hurricane, the information would be ambiguous and/or misleading if not totally incorrect. There is nothing wrong with using the full date, including the year any place a date is used. Including the year enhances the overall clarity of Wikipedia articles. Truthanado (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is something wrong, namely that we should not include redundant years that needlessly take up space. Note that the meteorological history section begins with a full date and does not use the year again, which is amply sufficient to establish 2023 as the year. This content will not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia that will not specify 2023. Convention in WPTC articles has always been to not redundantly add years to dates in storm articles, so you will need to discuss this at WT:WPTC for consistency. Also, your argument could be used to establish that articles like the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo need to have the year in every date as well, which is clearly unwieldy.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

few citations

[edit]

Only 2 citations in the whole article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1pameroo (talk • contribs)

@1pameroo: There are actually over 30: see the references section. What you probably saw was the notes, which are only clarifying footnotes, not source citations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damage totals source is questionable

[edit]

I don't want to start an edit war but the source that was linked for the damages doesn't look concrete. The source itself does not mention that it is confirmed that the damage totals exceed 1B$ USD, only that it COULD reach to 15B$ USD. Nothing in the article itself is stating that the costs are confirmed. Unless I am misreading it, if so please quote directly where it states that the costs are confirmed to exceed over 1B$ USD @Hurricane Noah zoey (trooncel) 22:33, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trooncel: In Acapulco, Otis claimed at least 27 lives according to the local governor's tally issued on Thursday, which has not been updated. It has also caused widespread destruction and billions of dollars in damages. Billions by default means >1 billion. There is no need for something to be "confirmed". That is an over-complication of the matter since costs are never entirely confirmed but are merely estimates. Noah, AATalk 22:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone have any issues with using this as a damage total instead? It's the most concrete number I've seen so far. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is it just says between 200 thousand to 300 billion pesos will be required to rebuild or up to 300 billion earlier at the start. Noah, AATalk 01:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where it says entre 200 mil y 300 mil millones? Yeah, you have to parse that as "between (200,000 and 300,000) million", ie 200 bn to 300 bn. 200k pesos isn't enough for a new car. Moscow Mule (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a weird way of writing it for sure. I’ve similar things expressed in the format of 200 y 300 mil millones. I guess it would be fine if that is correct. I for sure would never write that way in French. Noah, AATalk 01:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
El Financiero does it your way: entre 200 y 300 mil millones de pesos. Much clearer: between (200 and 300) billion, keeping the digits and the words separate. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added it. I have that other agencies have upped estimates to 14-21 billion USD so this is probably fine for now until we get a better number to use. Noah, AATalk 12:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2023

[edit]

At least 48 Deaths 2600:1702:21D0:4F20:F1AE:4101:B7B3:92A4 (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath photos and videos

[edit]

At commons:Category:Impact of Hurricane Otis (2023). Anything there worth including in the article? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TCR Dropped

[edit]

prob would be good to update any info on the storm with what the NHC has said in the TCR, and also list it at the bottom as a source.


https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/data/tcr/EP182023_Otis.pdf

Blueony Blueony (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath - Affects of looting, World Central Kitchen

[edit]

I am new to this, but I am very invested in this event. I think the article is woefully understating the state of the city post hurricane. The scale of the looting, first in the search for basic provisions, then wide scale throughout the city was enormous. Walmart (which runs the supermarket chain Bodega Aurrera as well as Sam's Club and Walmart) said 23 of its 50 stores were a complete loss between Otis and the subsequent looting. Another report is over 16,000 small businesses were damaged or destroyed. Rapiña, saqueos y desabasto: los comercios cifran en más de 390 millones de pesos los daños tras el huracán ‘Otis’ | EL PAÍS México

World Central Kitchen provided over 5 million meals in the 8 weeks after the hurricane. https://wck.org/news/gracias-guerrero

I do not have the academic expertise to write like many of you. But I think that the aspect of the humanitarian crisis that was caused by Otis should be more developed. Infohiker2 (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Otis&oldid=1253117188"