Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Alternative theories page history II

/Archive 1

Attribution

Material on this page was originally contained in Political effects of Hurricane Katrina; the edit history remains preserved their. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 01:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Hoagland

I removed Richard Hoagland's crank theory as it does not appear to be supported by anybody else and all the supposed sources were either him, his blog, reports on his blog at other unreliable sources, or 404. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another fringe theory

What about the fringe theory that the hurricane turned northward due to the influence of weather modification machines built by Japan? ~AH1^(TCU) 13:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Undid major changes.

I don't think that removing all of an article's content makes much sense and seems a bit pointy given the AfDs and DrV. That said, assuming it was just a bold attempt to fix things, I've reverted as I think such a change requires discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

It was an attempt to remove all of the things in the article that were:

a) Unsourced.

b) Not reliably sourced.

c) Not fringe theories.

d) Not suitable for Wikipedia.

e) Fringe theories that did not meet the standards of WP:FRINGE.

I was actually expecting to be left with a little bit to work with, in the "rumours about the levees" section; however, after examining the sources, I found them to be mostly blogs and community-run news sources; that alone precludes the sources from being reliable. The fact they were run by conspiracy theorists makes them even more unreliable. The fact that not one part of the article apart from the lead section could pass any of these criteria is very telling. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I intend to remove the offending content by the end of the week, if no-one can offer a good policy-based reason why it should stay. AfD, as it has been made abundantly clear, doesn't rule that any content should stay; just an article at the same name. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd urge you to seek another opinion before doing so. You are of course right about AfD, but I think that AfD/DrV made it very clear that your reading of policy here lacks consensus. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd actually argue it's AfD that's not inline with policy, not me. The removal of information that is not reliably sourced, or otherwise unsuitable for Wikipedia, is uncontroversial. It's just that you can't use Special:Delete because of the Inclusionist National Committee decrying all page deletions as socialism. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course you'd argue that as it's plain you believe that. But acting against such a clear consensus isn't a good plan. Hobit (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, our old friends truthiness and wikiality. It doesn't matter that in reality the theories aren't notable or well-sourced; we just need to have a consensus that they are. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How else to run a collaborative effort? Look, I'm sympathetic with your concerns. I don't find much in this article is notable. Nonetheless, steaming forward as you apparently plan to do, consensus be damned, is a foolish approach. Better to wait a while and raise concerns again. Given enough time, it should become apparent to everyone that these various fringe theories were temporary items of interest. (Note: you could certainly remove unsourced items without raising controversy.) Phiwum (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hell, removing anything that fails a) or b) would remove most of the article. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Did a rewriting of the intentional bombing theories based on New Orleans Times Picuyune Article. Changed title to note it is a conspiracy theory. This is in line with how similar beliefs are described in other articles. Note that there are concrete reasons for this belief, a levee was intentionally dynamited in 1927 that resulted in saving white areas while flooding poor and black ones. The article quotes academics for these reasons. Edkollin (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal

As I said about a week ago, I've removed anything that does not meet a lenient application of a), b), c), and e), treating anything where the reference given does not substantiate the statement given. I have been lenient in application of e); anything that cites a currently existing secondary source has been kept. I must caution people not to restore anything removed, as there are major BLP/FRINGE considerations here. However, now that this has been done, we are left with:

• An anti-abortion advocate's case of apophenia.
• A bishop who resigned because he said it was caused by God. (possible COI on the part of the bishop to say this?)
• A Snopes article about a fake Pat Robertson quote on a trashy gossip site.
• An About.com blog that doesn't really make sense any more.

Can we really substantiate an article on this topic if these are the only things we can cover and have been reliably sourced to secondary sources? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, and I don't believe I have to say this, but as people are knee-jerk reverting anything with a <ref> tag: sites with 404 pages and sites such as godhatesfags.org are, in no way whatsoever, reliable sources. I've checked every source in the "supernatural causation" and "levee" sections, and removed anything that is sourced to anything that does not reasonably pass RS, except for the Chocolate City Speech citation, where the citation given does not substantiate the quote. See WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:FRINGE. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Global warming material restored

The title of article has been reverted to its earlier form, from which it was changed without discussion, and no longer contains the word "fringe"; therefore, inclusion of the (well-sourced) global warming material is now appropriate. If there is a clear consensus to the contrary, I'm certainly willing to hear it. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

But it's clearly not an "alternative theory". It's in fact a mainstream theory. Its existence in this article is solely an artifact of it being pushed out by climate change deniers five years ago. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this covered to this extent (or at all) elsewhere in articles pertaining to Hurricane Katrina? bd2412 T 17:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Circular question, really, but I don't believe it is. However, I believe the correct place is Hurricane Katrina and/or 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not circular if a consensus has been established at those articles that it belongs elsewhere. In that case, it goes here or nowhere (and I think here is the better option among those two). bd2412 T 22:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, nowhere would be better as it wouldn't misrepresent a mainstream theory as a fringe theory. However, consensus can change, and people may be willing to let it in now. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you initiate a discussion at those respective pages, to gauge whether their community of interest is now amenable to including the global warming material. That would obviate the need to have it elsewhere. bd2412 T 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to start a merge discussion. Wait a second... Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Cold-war weapon theory

Has there been any consensus on including the "cold war weapon theory" which can be found in multiple sources, but summarized here: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2005-09-20-wacky-weatherman_x.htm AliveFreeHappy (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• We had a section on covering HAARP before which was deleted for lacking reliable sources. I think the USA Today source remedies that issue. bd2412 T 20:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
  • One weatherman making this claim although reliable is not notable. Edkollin (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Somehow the page was moved from it's former title to "Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina". I can find no discussion, nor a consensus to do that, so I have moved it back to the more accurate and shorter title "Hurricane Katrina fringe theories". I have also separated the global warming stuff to Hurricane Katrina and global warming. Whatever we settle on for a title, the word "Alternative" is bad, because it's a weasel word. We should say exactly what the theories are, and we should not lump too many different things together. These are the fringe theories. The global warming stuff is not fringe. Mainstream scientists have been saying for years that global warming would increase the intensity and frequency of storms. The sourcing is sufficient sourcing to support a separate article for that debate. Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

• Of course you can't find the discussion if you break the link to the archive where it is to be found - Talk:Alternative theories regarding Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1#Name of this article. Moved back per consensus of that discussion. bd2412 T 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)