Talk:2013 North India floods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have made several edits and improvements to "2013 North Indian floods" ( This disaster wasn't restricted to "North India" (which isn't), but extended to the adjoining Doti and Humla regions of Western Nepal, and possibly also to the neighboring regions of Chinese Tibet, and are evocative of the August 2010 Afghanistan-Pakistan-North India-Tibet-Uighyrstan-West Chinese Extreme Weather (2010 Ladakh floods, & which was one single event, not several events "restricted by state nationalities" as if Meteorology is restricted to state boundaries! Just because the affected areas of India are more accessible than Doti, and because India is more vocal and dominant on the world stage, one must not allow the spread of the event to be restricted artificially to India's borders and dismiss the impact to Doti as "insignificant" or "unrelated"! (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Sir , This is to bring your kind notice that the Northern Indian part of the map, as shown on the right, of the write up in the link titled " North India floods " is not acceptable in India / by Govt of India. In fact such maps are banned in our country. Request do the needful for correction .I am only requestiing to put the correct Map of India or croping the map to high lights only area of concerned w.r.t write up . Thanks and regards Madcafe — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:03, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Uttarakhand tragedy[edit]

The article "2013 North India floods" covers the flood damage of North India, in general.

  • During 2013, the damage happened in Uttarakhand state is unprecedented and the magnitude is the worst in the history of any Himalayan state. Some towns and villages like Kedaranath, Rambada are totally washed out. The total death and missing in this state alone runs to thousands. More than 350 hotels, resorts and thousands of houses are destroyed in the state. In this background I propose following:
  • A separate article for damages and loss happened in Uttarakhand state alone can be created.
  • This article can be named "2013 Uttarakhand tragedy" or similarly.
  • The damage done to villages, towns and pilgrim centres and info. about thousands of pilgrims washed, injured and unprecedented rescue operations to be covered.

I seek opinion of other editors. Rayabhari (talk) 16:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Currently, the information on the article not so much that we would want to split it. It's hard enough already for readers to find this article. Let's not make it any harder at this instant.
The article for now can handle having both the states. If the need arises when we have a lot more information on the issue, i'll be open to reconsidering. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Google search 'uttarakhand flood' doesn't show this page. So article title is rather useless for general reader as almost all flood death are in uttarakhand and focus of people/media/government is on uttarakhand. Article should be named to 2013 Uttarakhand floods. For the moment at least a link to this article should be on top of Uttarakhand which I can't do due to edit box limit. But I repeat, current article title is useless for general reader searching for 'uttarakhand flood'. neo (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia tends to be lower than other websites for recent events, and most of the hits we get happen to be from those specifically for the Wikipedia article. However, I do note that we have got 15000 hits each for the past 2 days, and that a Google News search I did listed the Wikipedia article. I've also created redirects from several possible links to this page so readers dont have a blank page staring them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I don't see link on Uttarakhand article. It should be there until crisis is over. I can't edit that lead section. And why not move article to name 2013 Uttarakhand floods when almost whole article is about Uttarakhand? neo (talk) 09:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Link to lead added. I'm open to renaming North India to Uttarakhand if there is consensus for the same, but I'll prefer having it as North india, because it wasnt the only affected state TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree, the disaster has affected both states, and given the fluctuating news reports and the potential magnitude, we need to wait until the article is better developed, before splitting it up (after a further discussion). I read reports on Al-Jazeera a few hours ago that spoke of 6,500 dead - which will dramatically change the notability of the event, and hence, give us more clarity on the question raised above. Skycycle (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The article was originally started with title "2013 Uttarakhand floods" by me, later moved by another editor, and at that time there was another article with title "2013 North India floods". I feel that a separate article with title "2013 Uttarakhand tragedy" (or simialar) can be developed with a link to "2013 North India floods", on observing the huge damage done in Uttarakhand state. Rayabhari (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removed sections[edit]


I had previously removed three sections which were unnecessary, but they were readded, and my edit was marked as vandalism. I have re-removed that, considering mine, and other concerns on the talk page, and I request all users to comment on whether they think it makes for a useful addition to the article or not.

The sections are listed below.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Reasons for catastrophe[edit]

Contrary to the common belief that the catastrophe was caused primarily by natural disaster, it has been found that government policies held the greatest responsibility. In recent times such incidents have been occurring at an alarming rate. The negligence of government towards rapid deforestation and inaction towards wrong ways of construction work, hydro power projects, mining projects are main reasons behind frequent floods and landslides. The blast carried out in anti-environmental ways and government's blind eye towards them made significant natural alterations in nature. The hydel projects have been undertaken without assessing their impact on environment. Asiganga hydro-power project played a key role in the Uttarkashi disaster in 2011-12. At the project site of Asiganga, blasts are being carried our regularly to make the dam which results in debris falling into the river. The debris raises the water level in the river which leads to flash floods when it rains heavily. A large number of trees are also cut for these projects, causing soil erosion and leading to massive landslides. More than 220 power and mining projects are running in 14 river valleys in Uttarakhand. Several rivers are being diverted through tunnels for these projects leading to major disasters in the state. [1].

The environmentalists strongly condemned government's inaction towards mushrooming of buildings and houses along the banks of the river, construction of dams, blocking of river's natural flow. Due to these in August 2012, buildings were washed away by Uttarkashi flash floods and later, a cloudburst in Rudraprayag had claimed 69 lives. The Central government's non seriousness about keeping its assurance for stopping the work on hydro electric projects on Alaknanda and Mandakini, the two main tributaries of the Ganga which meets at Rudraprayag resulted in this disaster, which is the epicenter of the devastation. Two 20km tunnels are being built to divert these rivers for hydel projects and constant blasting of the river banks has affected the local ecology. The green cover on the hills that checks and absorbs the flow of water has been eroded in the name of hydel energy.[2].

"The natural flow of water in Kedarnath was blocked by huge construction in recent years," said an Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) official. ISRO monitors hydrological flow of major river basins in India. The absence of environmental regulations in various construction activities like dams, buildings etc. have caused this huge devastation. "There is no local planning and local authorities are not in control. The houses built on river banks are falling like a pack of cards. The floods are completely man-made, avoidable and criminal," said Sunita Narian, director general of Delhi based advocacy group Centre for Science and Environment (CSE). "These projects have been allowed without cumulative environment impact assessment on the region. With these projects come hotels, residential and commercial buildings, and roads. This piecemeal approach has contributed to the devastation," said Himashu Thakkar of South Asian Network on Dams, Rivers and People. A CSE analysis showed that vehicle population in the state almost tripled between 2005-06 and 2012-13. Cars, jeeps and taxis, the most preferred means of transport for tourists landing in the state, increased the most. "Most of these places have much more tourist inflow than the area's carrying capacity," said Bharat Jhunjhunwala, an environmental activist and a resident of Rudraprayag. ISRO satellite images show how Sangla valley, a key tourist attraction, had changed in the last few years. "What used to be an open green area (in Sangla) till a few years ago is now a concrete jungle," the ISRO official said. To top it, the 1,000 MW Karchham hydel project has been commissioned by making the Sutlej disappear for over 100 meters. Vinod Tare, senior faculty at IIT Kanpur and an expert on the Himalayan ecosystem, says when trees are removed, rocks blasted and unscientific anthropogenic pressure is exerted, nature plays havoc.[3]

India accounts for one fifth of the deaths caused due to flooding across the world. Twenty-four out of the 35 States and Union Territories are vulnerable to disasters and over 5 percent of our landmass is vulnerable to floods. Annually, an average of about 18.6 million hectares of land area and 3.7 million hectares crop area are affected by flooding. The report of the 12th Five-Year Plan working group on ‘Flood Management and Region Specific Issues’, shows Uttarakhand’s flood vulnerabilities. Until March 2011, it included the coverage of 2000 hectares, compared to 18000 hectares in Himachal Pradesh. The state has created 9 km of embankment, a fraction of the 159.16 km completed in Himachal Pradesh; it has no drainage channels, whereas Himachal has constructed 11 km While 82 Himachal villages were protected through the raising of the ground level, none of the villages in Uttarakhand received such protection.[4]

In 1976, the Government of India set up the National Flood Commission (Rashtriya Barh Ayog) “to evolve a coordinated, integrated and scientific approach to the flood control problems in the country and to draw out a national plan fixing priorities for implementation in the future.” Though the RBA report was submitted in 1980 and accepted by Government, not much progress seems to have been made in the implementation of its recommendations.[4]

In 1997, the Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council created a ‘Vulnerability Atlas’ that mapped the extents of the disaster prone areas of the country. In light of fresh census data after 2001, it called for greater public awareness and the need for legislation that affected town planning, ‘techno-legal regimes’ for land use zoning in vulnerable areas, protection of critical buildings used by the public and, most significantly, the empowerment of local bodies to exercise control.[4]

The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), the supreme disaster management agency in the country set up through the Disaster Management Act of 2005, published guidelines for Management of Floods in 2008. In its thorough assessment of measures required in the short and long term, it highlighted the ‘Immediate’ requirement for (i) identification of flood prone villages, blocks, tehsils and districts on national, state and district level maps, (ii) amendment of building bylaws to make future buildings in flood prone areas flood-safe, and (iii) “notification of regulation for prohibiting reclamation of wetlands and natural depressions”. The immediacy of its recommendations has been consigned to the scrapheap, although they form the bedrock of most recommendations about disaster mitigation.[4]

The Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC), in its report on ‘Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation’ reminds us that from 1970 to 2008, over 95 percent of the deaths due to natural disasters occurred in developing countries which clearly signifies that such disasters are not related to geographic location but the environment preservation.[4]

Mismanagement of the rescue operation[edit]

The government is squarely blamed for mishandling the rescue operations. While Indian home ministry announced choppers for rescue operation but when the choppers reached the site, they were all found to be missing fuel without which they were of no use. Due to this the rescue operations were suspended on Thursday in the rain-ravaged state of Himachal pradesh. Also two Air Force choppers could not operate due to refueling problems. "There aren't enough choppers and the ones that have been sent cannot fly because there is no fuel. There is no provision for fuel," Chief Minister Singh said.[5]

Villagers hit by floods and landslips raised anti government slogans as Uttarakhand Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna and Agriculture Minister Harak Singh Rawat landed at the Rudraprayag helipad on Wednesday. The people angered because authorities had failed in disaster mitigation efforts earlier and were failing now in providing relief to Rudraprayag — one of the worst-hit areas. Similar scenes of anger were witnessed in Uttarkashi where people could be seen waiting in queue for hours to get a bucket of potable water blaming authorities who didn't take any action of building structures to prevent water from entering in spite of receiving funds. People also blamed authorities for covering of canals in the name of beautification and widening of roads by so-called experts in Dehradun.[6]

Even the supreme court of India is also skeptic about the rescue operations done by government and has demanded a detailed report by 26th June on the government's efforts.[7]

In-spite of this huge devastation, the Centre is yet to appoint head of the specialized 10,000-personnel strong NDRF(National Disaster Response Force), the mainstay for disaster mitigation and rescue operations in the country. Keeping the organization without a full-time head for such a long time speaks about the importance that is given to such a crucial organization.[1]

A day after chief minister Virbhadra Singh being rescued from Kinnaur district, flew in a private helicopter to address an election rally in Mandi from where Pratibha Singh, wife of the chief minister is the candidate, at a time when the government machinery should have been geared to tackle the natural disaster instead of focusing on elections.[8][9]

Amid the disaster, the CM of Uttarakhand Bahuguna is going to Switzerland next week. Though the trip was planned before the floods but the CM hasn’t shown the empathy to get it cancelled either.[2]

However individual reports from survivors from the area who were rescued by para-military and armed forces generally praised their efforts. A former cricketer who played for India's national team Harbhajan Singh was travelling in the area for a pilgrimage to Hemkunt Shrine had the following to say: "ITBP people looked after us well. Also the Uttarakhand government was very supportive. They were providing people whatever was needed. Without Army we would not have comeback safely," he said. "They had a great set up. The camp there is big. They were providing all the facilities, food clothes, shelter. It was sad but it was an unbelievable experience," he added. [10]

Steps to avoid such catastrophes[edit]

Given that climate behavior and flooding patterns and extents are changing every year, there are three key imperatives. The first is the accelerated use and wider application of Geospatial mapping technology. The capacity of the National Remote Sensing Center (NRSC) at the Indian Space Research Organization and the work of its Disaster Management Support Program and Decision Support Center must be linked with all planning efforts in the country.[4]

The enhancement of the Bhuvan platform – our own version of Google Earth – and the preparation of Flood Hazard Atlases for all vulnerable states should be urgently completed. We need to rapidly expand the use of the Geo-spatial National Urban Information System as a mandatory basis for planning.[4]

In the context of disaster management, the distinction between rural and urban serves little purpose. Since the objective is to save life and property, the hazards linked with densely populated areas, which are chronically flood-affected, need to be addressed.[4]

Strong actions of government in strongly implementing environment preservation policies and punishing those who are not following those rules without getting stuck in red tapism.

Fully corruption free master-plan based development of towns and cities, effective drainage and water evacuation systems, construction of dams with strong emphasis on preservation on environment and ecology and without disturbing the nature.

Strict regulation of land use – critically, the avoidance of occupancy for agriculture and human settlement in river beds, drains and canals and prevention of siltation of river channels, mostly due to dumping of solid waste.[4]

Public open spaces, which are presently the most abused due to encroachment and haphazard usage, will be the only safe areas during disaster, as buildings become death traps during disasters.[4]

Not required[edit]

The above, lengthy eassy like commentary on reasons, what to do and what not to in future cannot be a part of this encyclopedic article. (Although it may make good reading). If at all anything to be culled out of these lengthy paragraphs, it should be brief and supportive to the title of the article. - And removal of such unnecessary commentary cannot be termed as vandalism.Rayabhari (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Causes section should be there but it should be trimmed to show only major points. neo (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Essay like commentary is not welcome in Wikipedia, which is basically an encyclopedia. We cannot write in the same style here, as they write in newspapers. Further, future things to do have little enclopedic value. <there exist many people whose only work is to delete the content> - this opinion may not be true! Rayabhari (talk) 15:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Please dont add RSS to the list of organisations in rescuing, unless we have any reliable sources saying that. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Source. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The source says that the BJP says that RSS cadres are involved in rescue. Could we have a source which directly says that RSS workers are involved? That would make things a whole lot easier and simpler. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Will these work for you?1 and 2 and 3. We can also take primary source and attribute it to them 4 .-sarvajna (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Source 3 had the same above problem. Source 2 and 4 are both primary. Source 1 looked good, but it did not single out either of the two parties. I dont see why wikipedia should try and highlight either of them, and so I have added a neutral line stating the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
2 is not a primary source, niticentral is not a website of RSS. It was started by Kanchan Gupta-sarvajna (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I was thrown off by Narendra Modi's picture in the website to take it that it was affliated with the BJP. Further examination still regards the source as unreliable due its pro-BJP/Hindutva bias (See 1 and 2 for proof on my last statement) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

How about this? Zzz... Good night. neo (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The source looks reliable, but I am not sure what can be added to the article from here yet. When this fund is disimbursed, if it still looks noteworthy/newsworthy, we might add it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

No confusion: Kedarnath temple is not damaged[edit]

First of all thank you. Kindly go ahead with the following suggestions and the accuracy regarding some information can be much improved from what it's written now as more reports are coming in including from internationally reputed media like The Wall Street Journal.

Damage to Kedarnath temple or a portion of the compound wall washed away and the temple is safe?

Kedarnath Temple, one of notable temples of Shiva in India and part of Char Dham yatra, was damaged from debris and mud due to heavy rain. This resulted in flooding and the boundary wall of the temple collapsing. [19] -

- The above information from the part of the article online right now is not true, as multiple sources, as well as eye witnesses have already confirmed that the original shrine is still there without any damage- 100% as good as it was constructed many centuries ago. Believers say, "miracle". Others say, "great engineering".

Correction or addition suggested(outline):

But contrary to the initial information, only some portion of the boundary wall was washed away, however, really not collapsed, as other reports say and the original temple stays intact.

Now, the initial confusion on the condition of the shrine, is zero. Reporters and people are confident to say that the temple is safe and not damaged.

Precisely, the compound wall and the original shrine are not the same. Both are different and constructed separately during different times. Kindly note this and help to do the necessary correction to avoid confusion. However, the place is inaccessible due to debris in the surroundings as of today. Number of people missing is reportedly very high in the state and people affected are above politics and expect and appreciate truly humanitarian efforts.

Some reports.

Kedarnath temple stays intact, its surroundings have gone with flow

Kedarnath Temple Survives Flash Floods ( Wall Street Journal)

A portion of the Kedarnath shrine compound has been washed away, however, the temple authorities have said that there have been no reports of damage to the temple, Press Trust of India reported.

Kedarnath temple safe, but off limits for three year (NDTV)

Kedarnath town is in debris but temple safe: Uttarakhand CM Vijay Bahuguna

.....state’s Chief Minister Vijay Bahuguna on Wednesday said that the famous Kedarnath Shrine temple is safe.

Kedarnath temple safe, but not reachable for a yr: CM ( PTI- Press Trust of India) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sathyasaagar001 (talkcontribs) 17:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Administration Failure[edit]

This section has been removed without explanation

Lack of coordination between the India Meteorological Department (IMD) and Uttarakhand Government led to the tragedy of mammoth proportions.

The warning from the meteorological centre in Delhi, which caters to the meteorological requirements of seven states of north India started to pour in for Uttarakhand from June 13. The 24-hours advance prediction of rather heavy rains (35.6-64.4 mm) on the first two days changed to heavy rains (64.5-124.4 mm ) by June 15. For June 16 and 17, the centre issued warning for extremely heavy rains (more than 244.5 mm). These were the two days when Uttarkashi and Chamoli district witnessed maximum rains and the resultant disaster.[1][2]

  1. ^ "Uttarakhand government ignored Met warning". Down To Earth. 20 June 2013. Retrieved 22 June 2013. 
  2. ^ "Flood of uncomfortable questions inundates". The Sunday Standard. 23 June 2013. Retrieved 23 June 2013. 
    • The sentences in this paragraph were directly copied from the source, and hence a copyright violation, which we cannot allow at any costs on Wikipedia. Hence I have removed the paragraph (again) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:44, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


"On June 17, 2013 Uttarakhand received more than 340 millimetres (13 in) of rainfall" - in a single day? Compare this source:

--Rainald62 (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I had written it from '14 to 17 June' (that too was bit wrong) when I wrote that line with IBN source. Someone changed it to 'on 17 June'. Need to find better source for rainfall which caused this flood. neo (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Fixed TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Aqua satellite images[edit]

I tweeted to Astro Luca Parmitano in jest that astros in ISS ignored India even during Uttarakhand floods. He tweeted back that for pics ISS need right pass over Uttarakhand. Then NASA tweeted me this url. But I can't upload even low res 250 kb images. Please someone upload these 3 images to illustrate the floods magnitude. neo (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Uploaded both full-color images to WikiCommons and pasted them into the article, though I'm sure they will be moved sooner rather than later :)) Skycycle (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I have uploaded hundreds of images on Commons but my browser is giving me trouble these days. neo (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Flood images[edit]

Can someone help me source a few images from say Flickr or somewhere depicting actual flooding? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't find any yet. Found some of last year. Category:2012 Himalayan flash floods. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This seemed to be the only photo on flickr I could find. Permission might be required TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately it belongs to a news site. If it belonged to an individual, I could've requested for relicencing. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:58, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Atleast 2 survivors raped and murdered[edit]

Hindustan Times mentions this. Should it be part of this article. I think it should. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for concern. The news says "reportedly" or "locals say" - In my opinion, before adding it to Wikipedia (which information is deemed by many, as authentic), we may need more secondary sources - like, a complaint lodged in the police station. Further, such high and weird information has sensational value and may be added only after sensation dies. Rayabhari (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure thats "Secondary" source. Because a police station report is a "Primary" source, which would be much less acceptable. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
What you are telling is correct. May be we may wait, till sensation dies and the news is confirmed by other sources. However, if you think, we can add such info. right now, please feel free to add it. Rayabhari (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Fingers being cut for rings[edit]

Rayabhari, currently two sources HT and Dainik Bhaskar report it. Will that not be reliable? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks claims/primary source. Such weird act may need more authentic secondary source, before we put it in the article. We may wait for better source/proof for cutting the fingers. Thank you for concern. Rayabhari (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Erm, This is a secondary source. I doubt sources can get any more secondary/tertiary than this. We already have two sources + A Dhaka newspaper (based on the HT source) speaking about it. Not sure if we should wait for any more sources. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm confused why this comment above has been ignored. I'll be re-adding this statement to the article, provided there are no further objections. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
        • Ok. Somehow, I feel that this weird act is out of context, for this encyclopedic article! Rayabhari (talk) 06:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Me too. It makes no sense unless numerous such crimes start happening. One example is really not worth mentioning. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Removed the statement under question per the above two replies. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

15000 Gujaratis[edit]

Narendra Modi lands in Uttarakhand, flies out with 15,000 Gujaratis. If i add it in the article, people start shouting i am POVy Hindu nationalist paid editor and what not. Maybe someone else should add it as they please. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I was searching for sources when I find this article from TOI. This fact looks certainly disputed. Still searching for more sources though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Further search reveals nothing but what has been alredy stated in the two sources above. All sources either state the fact in the first source, or state the disputing in the second. None of them check into whether the fact is correct or not. The search is still on, though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
This is the last story I can locate on the same. Overall, it looks like either we add both the points (Modi's claims and counterclaims) neutrally, or we add neither. I prefer the latter. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
As for as possible, we shall avoid names of political leaders/ministers. Even the name of Prime Minister was not mentioned, (I deleted it) but what he declared, the Rs.1000 crores relief, was kept in the article. Claims by Chief Minister of Gujarat - was it practically possible to air lift / evacuate 15000 within such a short time? Several Governments helped to evacuate, which we shall consider as act of humanity, without mentioning individual names. Rayabhari (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine to not mention Modi's name. But Gujarat CM's act should be mentioned. Well... maybe not yet. But maybe if we get more stuff, other state government's helps can be elaborated and then this can go in it. There are already talks of how other governments plan to help. We can wait till they act on their plans. Till then the doubts on number 15000 would also be clear. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We can just forget this claim - BJP President Rajnath Singh said on 26.6.2013 that "Narendra Modi never claimed rescuint 15,000 people from disaster hit Uttarakhand" (Times of India.27.6.2013). That settles the matter. Rayabhari (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Death tolls[edit]

Various death tolls, per date and per region and their combinations in the lead are quite confusing. Can we remove them and keep only the grand total up there? We can mention the latest per region toll in their respective sections below. At the end of it all, only the grand total will matter in this article and lets just maintain that. Readers might come from main page to get confused and see multiple figures and this isn’t any math puzzle. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Will it be OK to add a small statewise list at the end of the article, depicting total state wise deaths, damage and grand total? Rayabhari (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, provided that list is not incomplete. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Is this relevant?[edit] --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Please no. Let's keep the article to the flood itself, and the regular political gimmicks out of it. If the politics needs to be added, we can have them all on another page, but not here. Also, the source does not appear that reliable at all. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Okie. Just a note, the source is from the Daily Bhaskar, which is one of India's largest publications. They also publish the DNA. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I know what Dainik Bhaskar is :) I just looked at the story in question right now, and it does not seem very reliable, source wise. If there are several other sources on the same, then the reliablity concern will probably go away. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Okie. :) --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


Rayabhari, Dharmadhyaksha, Rsrikanth05, Lukeno94 this article seems to be in decent enough shape for taking a shot at GA status. Would any of you be interested in helping reach that level? I intend to nominate this article for GA soon.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for it. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:25, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I would encourage someone to implement the changes suggested in the peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/2013 North India floods/archive1 before proceeding to GA process. IMO the article is still a ways away from GA, but would be greatly helped if suggested changes are implemented. Peregrine981 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
I will be interested to work/support for GA.Rayabhari (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Rayabhari and Rsrikanth05, I suggest that along with the peer review points we start the clean up of the article with a simple point of getting citations for latest accurate figures and numbers for every value mentioned; and fill in prose wherever it is lacking. Any thoughts? When are we starting on this? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Tip: Nat Geo has made a documentary "Trapped in Kedarnath" in their series Trapped. Maybe that could be helpful in addition of content. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Martyrs of Uttarakhand Disaster[edit]

"Martyrs of Uttarakhand Disaster" is poorly titled and is basically a list of obituary/memorials Brainy J ~~ (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding merging proposal, I feel the merging would distort the "North India flood" article. Rather, "Martyrs of Uttarakhand Disaster" should be re-written/shortened.Rayabhari (talk) 16:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 North India floods. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)