Talk:2021 Uttarakhand flood

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2021 Uttarakhand flood article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A news item involving 2021 Uttarakhand flood was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 February 2021.

Wikipedia

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Glaciers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glaciers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Glaciers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GlaciersWikipedia:WikiProject GlaciersTemplate:WikiProject GlaciersGlacier articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

India: Uttarakhand / Geography / History Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup.

Weather: Floods Mid‑importance

	Weather portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Floods task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

2021 Uttarakhand glacier burst

Why are there 2 articles for the same event? This should be merged with 2021 Uttarakhand glacier burst. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, yet both articles are being expanded. Jim Michael (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aquatic Ambiance, I have just reviewed this page marked it for WP:CSD under the duplicate content category. Besides that, this article has WP:COPYVIO issues as well as namespace title issues... so better stick to the one which I have created. However, if anyone has any objections, I would like to help/assist and if it's required I can also reverse my call for CSD (if a consensus with good reasoning is available). Thank you. - Hatchens (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, both articles are not needed and are duplicative in nature. Thanks Hatchens for submitting the request for CSD and I support this decision. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

This page should not be speedily deleted because... This was the first article for the respective event. The other page is actually the duplicate page --Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice for all, do not remove the CSD tag (manually). Kindly follow the discussion here. - Hatchens (talk) 06:25, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I couldn't found any image on PIB's website, but found some on PIB Uttarakhand's twitter account [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. If suitable and not copyrighted, then please add these in commons. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 15:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Manasbose, added! - Hatchens (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hatchens thank you. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 16:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hatchens Thanks for adding the images; we will need licensing information though. In other words, in the file date, you will need to add the website from which you retrieved theses images. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 10:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler, I need your advice here. The images are fetched from the Twitter post of Press Information Bureau. The images and text are copyright free as per their website. But, what are the terms of copyright when it's shared via intermediary platforms like Twitter? - Hatchens (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hatchens: The link says, "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge and there is no need for any prior approval for using the content. The permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any third-party material." Wikipedia requires that the image be allowed to be edited, mangled, recombined, commercially used, etc. You should ask at WT:INDIA, and failing which at WT:IUP. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Page names are chosen from the most unambiguously general. This name is not. I will be making the bold move "this page" to "2021 Uttarakhand flood." If during the remainder of this year, another flood occurs in the state, we can make the page title back to being more focused. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the future naming perhaps we could drop the 'Uttarakhand'; it is a state of size and population similar to North Carolina, thus comparably rarely known to the rest of the world. And so, there are more glaciers, rivers, floods and disasters in Uttarakhand than only this one–especially from an asian perspective. I would prefer having Nanda Devi in the title and/or glacier, as these are closer to the origins and to remember. --S I 13:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post. I checked the precedent in the western Himalayan floods. The one that began in the tumbling boulders in the Mandakini River behind Kedarnath is called 2013 North India floods. It is the same with Pakistan and the Indus floods. Indus is not even mentioned. A disambiguating "India" might be helpful. Perhaps it could be changed to "2021 Uttarakhand India flood" or "2021 North India flood." Most readers don't know anything about local details. A too-focused page tends to languish, unread. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proof of the pudding is the Google search, "India flood." This page did not appear anywhere in the top 20. Hopefully, it will creep up, with the title change. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS Schmarrnintelligenz As for the glaciers in Uttarakhand, I do know about them. I drew the map of the headwaters of the Ganges (that you now see on this page) with my bare hands long ago. :) Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PPS Schmarrnintelligenz Another possibility, that would include your suggestion, would be 2021 Nanda Devi India flood. Uttarakhand is a name made up by politicians for Kumaon and Garhwal. The Nanda Devi is ancient. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pinging some people who are better versed in the art of naming and the rules thereof than I am: @Johnbod: (who helped out at the 2020 Delhi riots), and @RegentsPark, Vanamonde93, and Kautilya3: Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ECs) Thank you for your work and thoughts. Good suggestion! Google and the yellow press in "the west" certainly push up the most generalized catch-words, and I fully support to have those as redirects. (We could also call the 'Kenosha unrest shooting' the "2020 shooting in the USA" instead, couldn't we?) The Nanda Devi is the second highest mountain in India. We can also wait some days, how reports develop, perhaps it will be more generally a 'disaster' than only a flood. Perhaps "2021 Nanda Devi glacier disaster" could also make sense. --S I 14:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC) P.S. Uttarakhand flood, 2013, Uttarakhand disaster, 2014 for example...[reply]

Waiting a few days is not a bad idea. The Rishiganga, as I indicate, in the caption of the headwaters map, rises in the meltwater in the Nanda Devi Sanctuary, i.e. within the circle of peaks that surround Nanda Devi, including Trisul, Dunagiri, ..., and Nanda Devi itself. So, naming the page after the Nanda Devi mountain alone is probably not accurate. As for a glacial outburst, there are reports now that it might have been a landslide caused by a falling chunk of glacier attached to one of the surrounding peaks (Dunagiri, perhaps), not a lake outburst (See here) A landslide into a river is equally likely, though usually not in the winter months. (I haven't been into the Nanda Devi sanctuary, but I've been in the surrounding region, and in winter. :) ) But in any case, waiting a few days is a good idea. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 16:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most reliable sources using the word "Uttarakhand flood". ^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 16:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Gupta, Moushumi Das (2021-02-08). "Uttarakhand flood puts focus on Rs 12,000-cr Char Dham project, ministry awaits SC order". ThePrint. Retrieved 2021-02-09.
^ "Uttarakhand Floods | A Disaster Foretold". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 2021-02-09.
^ "Explained: How to tackle a glacial burst and how is India prepared". The Indian Express. 2021-02-09. Retrieved 2021-02-09.
^ "Uttarakhand floods: 26 bodies recovered, 171 missing; rescue ops on, experts trying to determine cause of disaster - India News , Firstpost". Firstpost. Retrieved 2021-02-09.

I think it is best to be ready to change names in the immediate aftermath of such an event, waiting to see what emerges as the COMMONNAME. There is also the question of domestic vs international, where the answer might be different. I think the present name is ok for now, but the most likely change would be to work "glacier" in somehow, as that is the most distinctive and unusual thing about this event. 2021 Uttarakhand glacier flood might work. I'm not sure Nanda Devi is that helpful - the disaster & deaths were presumably some way away from the mountain proper - per the map in the article Joshimath seems to be some 50 miles from the Nanda Devi peak as the crow flies. That name (ND) doesn't appear very prominently in the media I'm seeing in the UK. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, Nanda Devi is not used in the MSM. Wikipedia is a encyclopedia, people will search Uttarakhand floods for education purposes, instead of Nanda Devi flood

-- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 16:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the opinion of naming this page as Uttarakhand flood or disaster. Because thats the first thing most the unfamiliar people search for the first time. Kichu🐘 ^Discuss 17:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Up to now we already have as redirects (alphabetical):

Waiting makes sense, but it increases the circle reference effect that many (also reliable) media is remarkably influenced by the name they see here, in Wikipedia! --S I 18:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Johnbod for the clear advice, as expected. Thanks Schmarrnintelligenz for the point about the redirects (fully half of which are mine. :)). Thanks Manasbose and Kashmorwiki for the suggestions. As far as I can see thus far, here are the stats for the different names. (The "AND" is not needed, but it helps in clarifying.) "2021" AND "Uttarakhand flood" (1,260,000, Google returns), "2021" AND "uttarakhand glacier flood" (17,200 returns), "2021" AND "nanda devi flood" (346), "2021" AND "uttarakhand disaster" (526,000) and 2021" AND "India flood" (51,709). We would reap more no doubt if 2021 were not included, but it is needed to disambiguate from the 2013 flood. I think it is wise to wait, but it is trending to what we have. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is a good reason to not waiting as "circle reference effect" is a valid argument. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Experts blame climate change"

The article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/himalaya-disaster-in-uttarakhand-exposes-risks-of-indias-rush-for-green-energy-jbjgc2cn5 writes: "Experts blame climate change, with the impact of rising temperatures exacerbated by a surge in construction. India has built hundreds of dams and hydroelectric plants along its Himalayan rivers to conserve water supplies and build renewable energy sources. This has destabilised the ecosystem." I consder this to be reporting on rumors or hearsay, not fact-checked content. Understandable since it's breaking news. There is no reference to who theese experts are or exacly what they said. The paper is generally reliable, but this is not appropriate for the article. --Tallungs (talk) 05:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tallungs: What specific Wikipedia policy have you used to remove the sentence?

Please note that MOS:WEASEL states, "The examples above ("experts declare") are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution. Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies."

Wikipedia frowns upon using expressions such as "experts blame" or "experts declare" by Wikipedia's editors in paraphrasing a source, i.e in Wikipedia's voice. It does not frown upon a reliable source using those expressions. In this instance, the expression has been used by Hugh Tomlinson, the South Asia correspondent of The Times, London, founded 1785, the first newspaper of record of the English-speaking world. Conservative it might be in outlook, but it is still a solid newspaper. If you think The Times is not reliable, then please open a thread at WP:RSN, but you cannot go around removing reliably sourced content based on your own opinions.

In other words, you may consider it whatever you do, but your view is not in consonance with WP policy. I will give you a day to mull this over and self-revert; otherwise, I will get help from an uninvolved admin. Best, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomlinson further states, "More than 30 power projects are planned for Uttarakhand. Deforestation has eroded topsoil, increasing the risk of landslides. Residents complain that construction debris is dumped in rivers, raising water levels." Will you be asking him for sources for that statement? That statement is the source. Its reliability is the imprimatur of The Times. Similarly, "experts blame" is the phrasing of the source. And, no, it is no longer breaking news. This article was written nearly a week after his original report of 7 February. He had a second report filed on February 8. This is the third report. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 07:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the author or the paper, and do consider them trustworthy. The claim about experts though is an exceptional one, especially since it can be interpreted as implying academic consensus. I am not comfortable with the complete lack of references in the article on this point. If you really want that claim, and you trust it as a verifiable fact, than you should surely be able to find multiple highly reliable sources than can confirm this claim, or even expand on it. Can you stop baselessly accusing me of spam on my talkpage and only policy gatekeeping instead of trying to listen to what I write. Just talk to me like a fellow human. But you seem to have no interest in discussion since you've already decided that I must "mull this over and self-revert" or you'll contact an admin. I've never before felt bullied at wikipedia. I guess an admin would be the only way then. --Tallungs (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-national study in Science Magazine needs to be included

A comprehensive multi-national study published June 10, 2021 online at the Science magazine website as a research paper titled A massive rock and ice avalanche caused the 2021 disaster at Chamoli, Indian Himalaya is here:

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/09/science.abh4455

Web archive copy:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210612222813/https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2021/06/09/science.abh4455

Here's a quote:

"Our analysis of satellite imagery, seismic records, numerical model results, and eyewitness videos reveals that ~27x106 m3 of rock and glacier ice collapsed from the steep north face of Ronti Peak. The rock and ice avalanche rapidly transformed into an extraordinarily large and mobile debris flow that transported boulders >20 m in diameter, and scoured the valley walls up to 220 m above the valley floor."

It's probably best for me to defer to those with more expertise on the subject matter to update the article to include the findings in the research paper, but if nobody does within a week or so I guess I'll give it a try. — Itsfullofstars (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"2021 India flood" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 2021 India flood. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 29#2021 India flood until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 05:28, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Gupta, Moushumi Das (2021-02-08). "Uttarakhand flood puts focus on Rs 12,000-cr Char Dham project, ministry awaits SC order". ThePrint. Retrieved 2021-02-09.

[2] "Uttarakhand Floods | A Disaster Foretold". Moneycontrol. Retrieved 2021-02-09.

[3] "Explained: How to tackle a glacial burst and how is India prepared". The Indian Express. 2021-02-09. Retrieved 2021-02-09.

[4] "Uttarakhand floods: 26 bodies recovered, 171 missing; rescue ops on, experts trying to determine cause of disaster - India News , Firstpost". Firstpost. Retrieved 2021-02-09.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]