Jump to content

Talk:1928 Okeechobee hurricane/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Note on date

The 1928 article listed the hurricane as occurring at Lake Okeechobee on Sep. 17. Based on my research I changed this to Sep. 16. The hurricane struck on the night of the 16th, with the greatest surge happening around 10 pm. Of course it wasn't until the next day that the damage could be assessed. Jdorje 02:48, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone changed the date-first-spotted to september 6. But there is nothing in the sources about this. The only thing I can find is [1] which lists the 10th. I'm assuming this is a confusion with the Great Miami Hurricane and I'm changing it back.
Not so fast. UNISYS, which takes it's track from the National Hurricane Center's Best Track Database (big file!), lists September 6. See here:[2]. I'm reverting the change if someone hasn't done so already.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 22:49, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Great but can we add some references for this? Jdorje 04:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Note on death toll

The combined death toll is now put at 4075+. This comes directly from [3] which shows the total death toll as 3375-4075. The footnote (b) explains that this includes 1575 from the Caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida; note that this document is from 1997. For years the official death toll from Florida was 1836. However in [4] we see that the US death toll is revised to the upper limit of the previous range: 2500+ (this happened in 2003, according to one of the other sources). This clearly makes the total death toll 4075+.

The breakdown of the Caribbean deaths is unclear. According to the explanation in the footnote from above [5], other sources list 300 or 312 deaths in Puerto Rico, 600-1200 for Guadaloupe, 18 for Grand Turk, and 3 for Martinique. Totalling the upper bounds for these ranges comes out to 1533, still below the Caribbean total of 1575. One Wikipedia author listed the deaths in Puerto Rico as 1000-2000, but there is no external source for this and it seems likely this is lumping in Guadaloupe. Jdorje

This figure (4075) has been listed for some time, but the majority of sources still say 3411. That list is never updated. Notice how Mitch, Georges, Floyd (all post-1996) and others are missing from the list. And please sign your comments (~~~~).
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 05:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "this list", I guess you mean the 1997 document. Obviously the list from 1997 isn't going to have any data from post-1997, including the later revision from 1836 to 2500+. Note the other list IS updated (to 2004 anyway) and includes 2500+, but this is only from the United States (plus an addendum including 312 from PR). The 4075 number is simple addition of the two numbers (neither original research nor undue extrapolation). Finally note that "most sources" don't count since this isn't a vote - the 1997 document lists all sources, then gives their own revised total of 3375-4075 (which is more accurate in hindsight, as the later revision of the Florida death toll shows). And, that comment isn't "mine" but explains the reasoning behind the current article (if the article is changed the comment should be too...hence the lack of signing). Jdorje 06:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Wait, what? What second list? There's only 1 list. That post didn't make much sense. The fact that most sources give 3411. Those little numbers on the side are notes to sources. Look how many there are next to the 3,411 figure. The only NOAA source I could find that lists the 2,500 figure for the US only lists 312 deaths for Puerto Rico, which is clearly an underestimate. I see more evidence pointing toward 3,411 than 4,075. 4,075 is a round number by the way, a trademark of inaccuracy. Also, the death toll table gives a 1,575 figure for non-US deaths, yet the source it gives does not mention this figure at all. It just says 'over 300'. This article needs to be corrected. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:27, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This isn't a democracy. It doesn't matter how many sources list each figure, all that matters is the official source. If you look at the pastdeadly reference, it lists 1575 deaths from the caribbean and 1800-2500 from Florida for a total of 3375-4075. This document is from 1997. However if you look at the other reference - and this is easy to confirm by doing some research - you'll see that as part of the re-analysis (post-1997, circa 2003) the 1800-2500 from Florida was changed to 2500+ (actually 2500-3000). In fact if you just use the two references given to confirm the two numbers given...I don't see how there's any room for confusion. Jdorje 08:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Note there are two references and thus, obviously, two lists. Jdorje 08:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
As for Puerto Rico, all of the sources listed by the NOAA document give figures of around 300 for Puerto Rico. If you believe this is incorrect you need to find an official source to back you up. Jdorje 03:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

First category 5

According to various sources this is the first category 5 Atlantic hurricane on record. Records apparently go back to 1851 but before hunter airplanes (and later satellites) hurricanes out at sea were obviously not well monitored. This hurricane supposedly hit Puerto Rico as a category 5 (though sources for this are scarce); I don't think there are wind readings from out at sea. Based on the pressure measurements (which are more reliable) one might be doubtful that the hurricane ever reached category 5 status. But NOAA says that it was, and we should obviously follow their judgement. Jdorje

Actually NOAA says that it was only a category 4 at PR [6]. But UNISYS says it was a cat5 all the way over PR [7]. So...I don't know what to do with this. Jdorje 01:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No it doesn't. It says it was a 4 in Florida. Further down the list in the addendum, it says it was a Category 5 in Puerto Rico. -- Hurricane Eric - my dropsonde - archive 04:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are correct. Jdorje 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Saintes Islands

This change made an addition mentioning the Saintes Islands. However there is no reference for this and I can't find anything about it (see this search, for instance). So I'm removing this claim. — jdorje (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Wind reading

I wrote

The 160 mph (260 km/h) reading from Puerto Rico was the strongest wind measurement ever reported for an Atlantic hurricane up until that time; not until Hurricane Dog of 1950 were stronger winds measured in an Atlantic storm.

which seemed quite obvious to me. Although the 1935 Labor Day Hurricane was likely stronger, no wind measurements for it were taken at all and the NHC best-track currently puts it at 160 mph winds (probably just because they're conservative and that's the lowest possible Cat5 wind rating). However, some disclaimer here is surely justified. Next, there's the point that Dog's winds were flight-level, so we could change the sentence to

The 160 mph (260 km/h) reading from Puerto Rico was the strongest surface sustained wind measurement ever reported for an Atlantic hurricane up until that time; not until (insert storm here) were stronger winds measured in an Atlantic storm.

So the question is, what's the answer? The NHC surely has enough archives to determine this, but I don't think they are available. However I will point out that it's quite possible no storm has ever had stronger surface winds measured until the use of dropsondes allowed measuring surface winds while hurricanes were at sea.

Anyway, this is just an interesting observation. It is unlikely that we could find legitimate enough sources to support more than the current statement.

— jdorje (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Damage elsewhere

So how can we find out about damage elsewhere (outside of inland florida)? A likely source is the MWR (http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/1928.pdf - currently not referenced at all), though there are surely others. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Guadeloupe

From the MWR: "No reports of damage accompanied the barometric data [from guadeloupe]. However, press dipatches from Paris, France, indicate that great destruction was wrought by the hurricane in Guadeloupe...". This implies there is more to be found but one would have to dig into french archives. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

St. Kitts, Monteserrat

From the MWR: "The English islands of St. Kitts and Montserrat also suffered heavy losses". — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

USVI

From the MWR: "The island of St. Croix suffered heavily in loss of life and in damage to property and crops". Elsewhere it says that the center of the storm passed 10 miles south of the island. — jdorje (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Puerto Rico

The MWR has a lot about PR. Just a few disorganized bits of trivia here: Apparently the 160 mph wind reading occurred 30 miles south of the storm's center and 3 hours before peak winds were reached. Shortly afterwards the anemometer was damaged; with various shadey extrapolations based on the reading after the anemometer was partially damaged, they conclude the reading would have been 190 mph had the instrument remained intact. Rainfall of over 25 inches was measured in some places. Loss of life was minimized because the island had plenty of warning. The Guayama 936 mbar reading was supposedly from the "vortex" of the storm, but in the next sentence they say hurricane-force winds were sustained there for 18 straight hours, with no mention of a letup as the eye passed. There were no reports from vessels at sea since they had been warned via radio and were staying out of the way. The most interesting bit: "several hundred thousand people were rendered homeless" - that is astounding for this time period. — jdorje (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've heard numerous reports that thousands of Puerto Ricans went unaccounted for. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Still todo

As a FA this article is basically finished. I know of no more information available on impact anywhere. Maybe I'll give the MWR a last run-through to see if there's any more to add on south florida. One thing that could be done, though, is a slight restructuring to add preparations and aftermath sections. A preparations section could be worthwhile since PR, the Bahamas, and Florida all had good warning of the storm's approach. Aftermath could cover the racial issues section. Also one thing I read in the MWR was interesting: apparently after this storm they confirmed what had been observed in the 1926 storm - that well-constructed buildings would suffer practically no damage from winds that would destroy inferior buildings. This is what lead to improved building codes in Florida that made later hurricanes like the 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane much less destructive. — jdorje (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Preparations? Jdorje, it's 1928. What's there to tell? Uncle Jeb and his neighbors went outside, closed the storm shutters, and hunkered down inside. There's a reason 4,000 people died. There was little preparation because there was so little warning. "Good warning" back then just meant that they knew about it before the winds started to pick up. Before the satellite age and before planes were made of something other than wood and canvas, all forecasting was completely earthbound. On Puerto Rico, all people had time to do was close storm shutters, take out a Bible, say a few prayers and kiss their butts goodbye. They had no warning and Floridians only had a warning when they read about Puerto Rico being obliterated in the morning papers. On the Bahamas, people just had nowhere to go. In 1947, planes were flying sorties into the thing twice a day since it passed north of Hispaniola. Floridians had at least a day's notice of that one coming. And given that transportation was faster and much more efficiant, people were able to get outta Dodge in time. An aftermath section would be useful though. The fact about building codes being improved is certainly something that should be mentioned. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 00:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
That's entirely not true! There is a lot of information about preparations in the MWR, much of which is embedded in the article. It is pretty clear that at the time, this was the best-forecast hurricane in history. The reason for the effective warnings was not planes, of course, but rather becuase the storm was spotted early and tracked by ships, and because it followed the chain of islands nearly all the way between guadeloupe and florida, with radio warnings preceeding it. The first radio report was received on the 10th; the farthest east any such report had ever been sent from. We don't know what kind of warning Guadeloupe had - none of the sources mention anything about it; since it's french-speaking you would expect most of the history to be in french somewhere. I strongly suspect that Guadeloupe did not get the warning, and that's the reason for the catastrophe there. However the island of montserrat (just north of guadeloupe) had some warning; the montserrat reference has some info about this but it's taken from a book so one would have to look at that book to get more info. The USVI likewise had warning, though they were only in the fringe of the storm. The island of puerto rico had days of warning, and that's why there were so few fatalities and not a single ship was lost in the area; the MWR has lots of information with specifics about who knew what when. The bahamas likewise had plenty of warning; not a single person died on the islands (that we know of), and the only fatalities were from one ship in the area that didn't get the warning and was lost at sea. The MWR has an exceprt from a bahamas official to the NWS thanking them for the warning. Florida likewise was warned days ahead of time, and coastal areas were evacutated effectively; only 26 people were killed along the coast despite near-total devastation. Inland preparations are obviously where things fell short, because nobody realized that a lake only a few feet deep could produce a 20-foot storm surge; residents did know of the approach of the hurricane but from what I can tell (not too many sources on this) did not evacuate or anything. — jdorje (talk) 03:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I've heard many reports about Puerto Rico and info seems sketchy. Only 300 bodies were accounted for but I've read in several places that thousands were missing and that the island was close to flattened. In Florida they did have good warning, as I said. The reason more people died inland than on the coast was because many of the people on the coast just went inland into the peninsula. They didn't think that the hurricane would send Lake Okeechobee plowing into them. Lacking the urgency and efficient means to get out of the peninsula, 2-3 thousand people died in the when Lake Okeechobee burst its banks and the victims had nowhere to go. That's why modern evacuations of Florida generally require leaving the state. I was just pointing out that there wasn't a helluva lot these people could do. They didn't have half the warning time that we have today and we can get out faster. Most importantly, today, we know if it's strengthening or weakening, what direction it's headed and how fast it's headed there, and just how bad it might be. Back then, they didn't know any of that. They just knew it was out there. The Monthly Weather Review had the advantage of hindsight. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 02:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What about a graphic showing the Track of the Hurricane

This article was excellent and well deserving of the recent "featured" award;however, I think it could greatly benefit by a map showing the chronological progress of the hurricane. "A picture is worth a thousand words."Hokeman 16:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is one in the storm history section. It does not show dates however. There is another on commons provided by the NHC...but it also doesn't show dates. — jdorje (talk) 17:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, something like that is what I had in mind, but in the main body of the article with dates and times- about every sixth dot or so along the track. Hokeman 17:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

New NWS page

In case anyone is interested, here's a new NWS page on this hurricane. Hurricanehink 01:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That's not new. It's where all the pictures come from. — jdorje (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, just checking cause I saw the page. Hurricanehink 02:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

High importance

The hurricane killed over 4,000 people, so why is it not high importance? Hurricanehink (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I was half-asleep :P On a serious note I assigned an initial rating to every storm, I'm probably a little off on some of them.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
LOL, no problem. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement about cost within article

In the info box it says the storm cost 1 billion in 2006 dollars. However, Section 0 states the storm cost 800 million in 2005 dollars. Did the dollar really devalueate 25% in one year?

Isaac 04:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There are more issues than that. In the "costliest Atlantic hurricanes" box, it claims that Hurricane Andrew was 5th, standing at US$55.8B in 2005 dollars and references another article. In the referenced article, Andrew stands at US$40.7B in 2008 dollars and in the hurricane Andrew main article, it is listed as US$38.1B in 2006 dollars. This would indicate the dollar lost a third of its value in one year (2005 to 2006). According the the US BLI, the consumer price index grew from 2005 to 2006 (from 190.7 to 198.3). The box on this page is suspect, it doesn't tie to the article it references.
For now, I'll remove it. If it is accurate and the other sources need to be edited, feel free to do so and revert this change.

Jamesfett (talk) 14:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Ive taken a look at the template after Jamesfett's edit to this article appeared on my watchlist. The Template itself relies on a study who uses 2005 USD. The article referenced used the same study but it appears that some OR has taken place on that article with damages inflated to 2008 USD. So im just gonna go through it and redo that main table to include the hurricanes damage total and inflate it to 2010 using the inflate templates.Jason Rees (talk) 20:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Amend material?

This is a suggestion to amend the material in the article. I saw that it is scheduled to be requested to appear on the main page.

1. This statement in the article: However, a levee breach of this kind is unlikely to occur again because of the much larger Herbert Hoover Dike that now contains the waters of Lake Okeechobee needs to be revisited. Particularly in light of publications like this.

2. Another long-term effect of the hurricane, along with the 1926 Miami Hurricane, that also caused the breaching of Lake Okeechobee's levees, was flood control in South Florida. That is discussed extensively in Draining and development of the Everglades. I'd be happy to assist in incorporating some of the material: one or two sentences.

Thoughts? --Moni3 (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed that sentence for now, at least until I get a chance to research it some more. Also, that could be good if you could throw in some information about long-term effects in the Everglades and south Florida. I'm sure you could probably just copy and paste a few sentences from that article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous stats

This hurricane really does have some ridiculous statistics from its puerto rico landfall.

  • Guayama reported hurricane-force winds for 18 hours. Based on a a movement speed of 13 mph (confirmed by the best-track), that's a 234 mile diamater (or 117 mile radius) of hurricane-force winds (with a large margin of error). This is slightly larger than Katrina when it was a category 5 (although Katrina grew larger, to 125 miles radius, as it weakened).
  • San Juan reported a 160 mph wind reading (1-minute sustained) from a cup anemometer shortly before the instrument was damaged. After losing one of its cups, the anemometer continued to register 130 mph. The MWR author does some shady extrapolation to conclude that the 130 mph reading indicates 190 mph winds.
  • The San Juan 160 mph reading occurred 3 hours before peak winds and 30 miles north of the storm's path. Following the 13 mph rate of movement and doing a little triangulation that means the reading was taken 50 miles from the storm's center. I don't know exact numbers, but to have category 5 winds extend outward 50 miles is unheard of (though note that san juan was in the front-right quadrant).
  • Up to 29 inches of rain fell in portions of the island. This is over a period of about 24 hours.
  • Several hundred thousand were left homeless. I didn't even know that many people lived in PR!

Of course one is free to doubt these measurements. I don't know how accurate surface wind measurements from this time were supposed to be (in later decades air wind measurements were used almost exclusively, until it was discovered these were hugely overestimated). You can also look at the 936 mbar pressure reading from Guayama, supposedly taken from the "vortex" of the storm (despite the fact that Guayama reported 18 hours of continuous winds, implying it was never in the eye), and conclude that the storm was not a category 5 at all. All of the wind measurements are unconfirmed since the instruments were all destroyed and could not be calibrated.

— jdorje (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not so ridiculous if you do a bit of research:
  • Guayama reported hurricane-force winds for 18 hours...this is slightly larger than Katrina.
    • Yes, this would be larger than Katrina -- but there's nothing ridiculous about either one. BTW, there were no levees in Guayama, Puerto Rico.
  • San Juan...registered 130 mph [winds]...The MWR author does some shady extrapolation to conclude that the 130 mph reading indicates 190 mph winds.
    • The categorization of shady is a big jump from your previous statements. Exactly what is shady about the "extrapolation"?
  • The San Juan 160 mph reading occurred 3 hours before peak winds and 30 miles north of the storm's path. Following the 13 mph rate of movement and doing a little triangulation that means the reading was taken 50 miles from the storm's center. I don't know exact numbers, but to have category 5 winds extend outward 50 miles is unheard of (though note that san juan was in the front-right quadrant).
    • What you are doing here falls under WP:OR, a forbidden practice at Wikipedia. But in any event, here are 190 mph winds (Cat 5) over 1,380 miles: [8], thus San Juan was not unheard of.
  • Up to 29 inches of rain fell in portions of the island...[in] 24 hours.
    • Denise hit Reunion with 72" of rain in 24 hours, per NOAA records:[1] Thus 29" is not an unheard-of record.
  • Several hundred thousand homeless...I didn't even know that many people lived in PR!
    • In 1928 there were a liitle under 1,543,913 people living in the Island per the 1930 US Census Office:[2] So yes, there were about 15x several hundred thousand living in PR at the time.
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 06:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on name

Some sources list this as the "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" or "San Felipe Hurricane" or "San Felipe II Hurricane" (see San Felipe Hurricane for info on other hurricanes of that name). This article uses "Okeechobee Hurricane" as its name since it's shorter, the NOAA Okeechobee page names it that, and the name is still suitably unique so there's no chance of confusion. Redirects and disambiguations have been set up for the other common names. In other NOAA lists it is included as both "Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" and "San Felipe Hurricane" - sometimes being included twice in the same list. Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water". Jdorje 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

"San Felipe Segundo" is the name as it was known to those countries who suffered MAJOR IMPACT. Okeechobee is solely a U.S. perspective. Please include both, regardless of length. Confusion is arising due to this desire to rename a historical hurricane that was known by people in the Caribbean as "San Felipe Segundo"


I AGREE WITH the anonymous June 13, 2006, user above ([9]), though the MAJOR IMPACT claim is (partially) debatable.

On the defense of the "San Felipe Segundo" (i.e, "San Felipe II") name:

(1) The original name of this hurricane was in fact, San Felipe Segundo (e.g., San Felipe II).

  • (a) This, not only because, it follows that, the hurricane first hit the Spanish Caribbean (where the name San Felipe II was used) days before it hit the Lake Okeechobee area. But more importantly, because at the time, the San Juan NWS office was the only hurricane weather service center in operation, "after it became evident that hurricanes that affected the US had their origin in the Caribbean".([10]).
  • (b) Note, in particular, that "The San Juan Weather Office...served as the Hurricane Forecast Center for the Caribbean from Hispaniola eastward up until the 1970's, when the National Hurricane Center was established in Miami, FL."([11]) As the 1928 hurricane occurred before the 1970's it was the responsibility of the San Juan Hurricane Forecast Center, and not the Miami-South Florida NWS office, to coordinate, dissemination, monitor, forecast, and broadcast hurricane information stateside. It was not until the mid 1950's that we see the U.S. use single popular names for hurricane names; prior to that (e.g., in 1928) the U.S. referred to hurricanes based on where they did the greatest damage (e.g., "Okeechobee). (Names are now agreed upon in advanced internationally by the WMO.) This means that any investigation about the 1928 hurricane must be done through the San Juan outfit, and not via the Miami office - and San Juan always refers to the 1928 hurricane as San Felipe II.
  • (c) The fact that Miami NHC was not yet operational also explains why "No reliable wind readings are available from near the landfall area in Florida": the Florida Center didn't yet exist! ([12]) Choosing / naming a hurricane by the area it affects can be a pretty undependable naming convention: the name San Felipe II followed a convention, while the name Okeechobee did not.
  • (d) In addition to the 3 sources above, the 1928 hurricane is called the San Felipe/Lake Okeechobee hurricane by the Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (HPC) of NOAA:[13]
  • (e) It is called the San Felipe II hurricane by the Southern Regional Headquarters (SRH) of NOAA: [14]
  • (f) It is also called San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane by the The National Hurricane Center of NOAA ([15])
  • (g) In fact, at least on one ocassion (I didn't check others) NOAA called the hurricane "San Felipe (1928)", and not "Okeechobee" (although it indicates a 1928 hurricane (no name) struck the US at Lake Okeechobee, FL) [16]
  • (h) In short, NOAA calls the 1928 hurricane either San Felipe II or San Felipe/Okeechobee, and rarely, if ever, just Okeechobee. In particular, NOAA NEVER calls it the Okeechobee/San Felipe hurricane, as the Wikipedia article currently implies by its use in the title as well as its preferential treatment of the Okeechobee in the article itself.

(2) Had the hurricane hit elsewhere than Lake Okeechobee, it most probably would not be called Okeechobee. Compare this with the predictable manner in which hurricanes were named under the Spanish tradition ([17]): its name would be that name of that day's saint -- no fuss, no quarrels, no preferences, no favorites, no bias/no POV.

(3) One note on damages: according to NOAA, "Damage to property was estimated at $50,000,000 in Puerto Rico and $25,000,000 in Florida."([18]). NOAA also reports that Florida saw over 2,500 deaths from this hurricane, while Puerto Rico saw around 300 deaths, and the Caribbean in general saw around 1,575.([19]) Thus, which was/were the area/s of major impact (as the anonymous user above states), will depend on weather financial loss or human loss is used as the criteria.

ON THE ABOVE reasons by Jdorje for titling this article with the Okeechobee name over the San Felipe II name:

(1) Shorter title. Favoring Okeechobee over San Felipe II based on title length really has no basis at all: Nowhere can I find that this is a criteria for naming wikipedia articles for which a de facto name already exists. If we were to follow that line of reasoning, then arguably many other articles would have a different name. This, thus, is a matter of personal perspective (POV), and not a basis for deciding the article's name (WP:Title#Deciding an article title).

(2) Official name. Titling the article on the basis that Okeechobee is the name chosen by NOAA, is not substatiated by the facts: The claim is true if you look at the local Miami-South Florida NWS office's website ([20]). If you look at the San Juan NWS office's website, you see this hurricane is called San Felipe II, no mention of Okeechobee at all ("Unfortunately, this building was destroyed by the San Felipe II Hurricane of September 13, 1928.") See: ([21]). Its imporatnt to follow San Juan on this matter, and not Miami, for reasons stated above under 1(a)-1(c). More importantly, if we read the NHC's page itself ([22]) the hurricane is listed as "San Felipe-Okeechobee" - yes, providing a clear preference for "San Felipe (II)" as the name by which the hurricane was known everywhere else outside of Florida. Incidentally, jdorge states "the NOAA Okeechobee page names it [Okeechobee]", but fails to provide a link.

(3) Disambiguation. Superficially, this may appear to be a very valid argument, but in reality it is not. The editor appears to forget that, either way, the title already includes the year of the hurricane ("1928"), ahead of everything else. Any ambiguity, thus, has been stopped on its tracks before you even get to say anything about the name of the hurricane, whether San Felipe II, or Okeechobee, or - for that matter - plain San Felipe. That is, even if the article was titled "1928 San Felipe hurricane" (as, the NHC does) the reader would already know the article is not about San Felipe I. So, no, there's no chance of confusion. This puported criteria, thus, is also a reflection of the editor's personal view on what the title of the article should be, and not the genuine reason to decide on the article's name (WP:Neutral point of view#Article naming).

(4) The editor also took the time to point out that "Note that "Okeechobee" means "big water"." The question is, so what? Maybe this is supposed to be another reason to name the article Okeechobee???

Thus, the only sensible, WP:NPOV, argument in favor of Okeechobee would had been #2 - Official Name. However, as we can see, San Felipe II was, is, and continues to be the primary official name of the 1928 hurricane in all levels of authority at NOAA.

BTW, most people in the continental United States are quite familiar with that big body of water stuck in the middle of the Florida penninsula called Lake Okeechobee, it is hard to forget after been tested on it in middle school history and high school geography class. Okeechobee is only a local U.S. perspective for the hurricane called San Felipe II, possibly because it is easier in the U.S. to remember which hurricane it was if it is associated with the area in the mainland U.S. where it hit hardest. It is thus understandable that there be a personal preference for Okeechobee as the name of this hurricane (and thus the article) -- and especially when the other choice, San Felipe II, seems so much more foreign. However, such personal preferences are not valid in wikipedia, and in fact they are invalid (WP:TITLE#Descriptive titles and non-judgmentalism).

As such I have tagged the page accordingly until these small issues can be resolved. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I am surprised you went into such detail, but despite that, I disagree. Calling it the "San Felipe hurricane" would be more biased toward Puerto Rico, but the greatest impact was in Florida (where there were the most deaths). In the NHC's list of deadliest hurricanes [23], they list Florida first under areas impacted by the hurricane. Additionally, the listing of all U.S. hurricanes, NOAA lists the storm's name as "Lake Okeechobee". I would be fine changing it to "1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane", if desired, but I would not like to see it as "1928 San Felipe hurricane". Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Changing a title is not a matter of what we would like to see it as, but a matter of whether it is "Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent". (WP:Title#Deciding an article title). The ideal article title satisfies as many of these as possible. The current title does not do that. I think you may have also failed to understand that in 1(g) NOAA wasn't calling it the "Lake Okeechobee hurricane", as you are proposing it could be changed to. In that reference NOAA is stating where the storm struck the US at. This is different from a hurricane's name. Mercy11 (talk) 03:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
    • What I am proposing that it be titled something more neutral, something that will be acceptable, per guidelines, to a greater number of readers and editors. That title should, imo, containg both names: San Felipe II and Okeechobee (or a variant of both, such as 1928 San Felipe/Lake Okeechobee Hurricane), as this is consistent with that which is most commonly found in a number of realiable sources of which I have provided numerous sources above. Mercy11 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately, such a title as yours is confusing and not precise, not to mention inconsistent with other hurricane articles. Additionally, just "San Felipe hurricane" would not be recognizable, since the NOAA calls it "Lake Okeechobee hurricane", and people have no idea what San Felipe is (is it a place, a person who died, etc.). The current title (or slight variant thereof) really is recognizable (people know where Lake Okeechobee is), concise (just three words, as opposed to four), and consistent (most hurricane articles are named after locations, and whatever the NOAA calls it). In the grand scheme of things, an article title is not that important, it's the content inside that matters. I hope this discussion wouldn't turn you away from Wikipedia, we could use someone who is passionate about hurricanes! Hurricanehink (talk) 12:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
        • Not all people know where Lake Okeechobee is!!! Hurricanes were named after Saints way before the US started naming them after locations. Never heard of lake okeechobee, have heard about San Felipe Hurricane thou. FYI San is Spanish for Saint. I find the present title confusing and not precise as well as unrecognizable. the title should contain both names. Or in any case San Felipe only since it is its original name, other than that congrats on the article. El Johnson (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
          • It's nothing to get excited about! ;) Honestly, I don't think people know that hurricanes were named after Saints days. Really, it probably doesn't enter many minds. I think more people know where Lake Okeechobee is than the saints naming, and that the current title is the most precise, but that's just my opinion. Really, an article title is just so people look at it and have some vague idea what it's about. It's not nearly important as the content inside. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Hurricanehink: you are presenting a considerable set of objections, but so far you substantiate none of them. It would be considerably more beneficial as well as more expeditious if you could back your claims with supporting links. So far you are just standing on a soapbox WP:SOAP:

(1)such a title as yours is:
(a) confusing

  • NOAA doesn't agree with you, as they use the name I am proposing:[24], [25]

(b)and not precise

  • I already responded to this argument [above] (when you were "surprised [I] went into such detail.")

(c)inconsistent with other hurricane articles.

  • You are not precise here;What do you mean by "inconsistent"?: that other hurricane articles don't use the older names? that other articles don't use a slash? don't use two names?

(2)Additionally, just "San Felipe hurricane" would not be recognizable, since the NOAA calls it "Lake Okeechobee hurricane"

  • -1- No one is proposing it be re-titled to "just" San Felipe hurricane, -2- "recognizable" by whom? Americans???, and -3- "NOAA calls is "Lake Okeechobee hurricane" is not correct, NOAA, recognizing that different people call it differently, fluctuates in the name of this hurricane, finally settling in using both names (as I am proposing). For the record, here is what NOAA calls it ---> [26]

(3)people have no idea what San Felipe is (is it a place, a person who died, etc.).

  • If you don't know what San Felipe is, I suggest you take a second look at your oft-cited NOAA: [27]. As a bonus, use the title I am proposing as a means to educaate those that don't know this hurricane is known by an entirely different name in the non-US world.

(4)The current title (or slight variant thereof) really is
(a)recognizable (people know where Lake Okeechobee is),

  • Really? Then what do you call those folks who don't know/didn't know where Lake Okeechobee is (as in myself!), "non-people"??? I repeat, you are exhibiting WP:POV, while violating the WP:NPOV policy.

(b)concise (just three words, as opposed to four),

  • WP:POV - there's no rule against having 4-word titles.

(c)and consistent
(i) (most hurricane articles are named after locations,

  • This is true only for hurricanes after the 1950s (and, yes, that excludes San Felipe II - a pre-1950s hurricane). Since most hurricanes have not occurred in the last 60 years, most hurricanes have not been named after places. See --->[28]

(ii) and [are named after] whatever the NOAA calls it).

  • You are contradicting yourself: here is what NOAA calls this hurricane --->[29]

(d)In the grand scheme of things, an article title is not that important, it's the content inside that matters.

  • If that is really the case, then why you are persistently objecting to changing the title?

(5)I hope this discussion wouldn't turn you away from Wikipedia, we could use someone who is passionate about hurricanes!

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Fences&Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing rationale: The title stays as it is until there is consensus to move to another title. This may be disappointing and seem like a cop out, but I read this debate through carefully, and checked sources to confirm what was being said. Here's some of what I concluded, which may help a future debate on the matter: 1. The name of the hurricane is often "San Felipe" in Spanish sources, but this is the English Wikipedia, so we need to go by the common name in English sources. 2. San Felipe Segundo is very rarely used in reliable sources.[30][31][32] 3. "San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane" is used in some reliable sources, but only rarely.[33][34][35], and "Okeechobee-San Felipe hurricane" is barely used at all. 4. Okeechobee is used about three times as often as San Felipe in relation to the 1928 hurricane at Google Scholar and Google Books, and 15 times as often at Google News (searches were for Okeechobee+1928+hurricane vs "San Felipe"+1928+hurricane). 5. There was some cherry-picking of sources, but it is the prevalence of use in reliable sources that is most important; of course individual sources use different names. 6. Alternatives, some of them contemporary, include the "West Indian hurricane", the "West Indies hurricane", "The Hurricane of 1928", "Lake Okeechobee hurricane", "The Night Two Thousand Died", "Puerto Rico- Palm Beach hurricane", "1928 Florida hurricane", "Great Okeechobee Hurricane", "Storm 4 of 1928", etc. The lack of consensus here reflects a lack of consensus in the real world. Fences&Windows 22:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane → 1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane — Relisted.--RegentsPark (talk) 11:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Requesting this article title change for the reasons presented under Note on name. In a nutshell, the current name represents a local view, not a worldwide view, of the subject; a proposed new name (such as, "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") would be more "neutral", i.e., not favor any region, country, tribe, landmark, geographical feature, etc; a new title would reflect a more balanced view of the cyclone, i.e., would incorporate the name of this hurricane as it is known in the the Caribbean (the name Okeechobee means nothing in the Caribbean); the addition requested in the new title (namely, the name "San Felipe II") is often encountered in the naming of the cyclone, and it is, in fact, how it was, and is, known by the authorities, namely NOAA). Please note that I am not suggesting belittling the use of the name "Okeechobee"; but simply emphasizing "San Felipe II" as this is the requested modification. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Try not telling me what I'm saying, Mercy11. I can do a super job of that myself. You seem to have no idea who the fuck I am by your stupid "drive by casting" comment. I have read quite a bit of information about this storm, particularly the social impact it had in South Florida, where it decimated several towns and almost the entire black migrant worker community in Belle Glade, and initiated the largest environmental disaster in world history (Deep Horizons oil spill has yet to meet it) when Lake Okeechobee was diked and the Everglades began to die. If your point is that "1928 Lake Okeechobee Hurricane" is a regionally biased name, that is quite possibly because this region was so poignantly impacted by it that it has produced the most source material about the storm. --Moni3 (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It goes on. --Moni3 (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose along those same lines. The article's title is largely insignificant as long as the content itself is well-balanced. Also, the proposed title is very clunky. Juliancolton (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strongly Agree per all of the sources written above and the reasons presented under Note on name. Plus ALL of the references I have read refer to this as the "San Felipe Hurricane of 1928". If the title is insignificant then it should be changed. And writing Okeechobee is much more complicated than writing San Felipe. The only part of the title that would make it "clunky" would be the Okeechobee part, but in the spirit of consensus then both names should be used in the title, the First and Official one first, and the "Popular in the United States" second.El Johnson (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Agree - I agree in the fact that both names should be kept as stated above, "First and Official one first, and the Popular one in the in the United States second." I also believe that a separate article about Hurricanes which have affected Puerto Rico and in which their effects on the islands economy could be discussed. For example, let say that an article "Hurricanes in Puerto Rico" is created and in it it is discussed how Hurricane San Ciriaco played an influential role in the Puerto Rican immigration to Hawaii. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Interestingly enough, I have had the opposite experience to El Johnson: most of the sources I have seen describe the storm as the Lake Okeechobee hurricane or some variant of that. The hybrid title is very hard to type, so I oppose the move. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You cast a vote, yet provided no citations?(WP:NOTSOAPBOX) The threshold for Wikipedia inclusion is verifiability, not personal experience. What citations do you provide to back your claim? I see none. Citations have to come from WP:RELIABLE SOURCES – one’s own experience, or a high school history teacher in Florida saying so are not considered reliable sources. The following list of reliable sources show that Authorities –do- call the San Felipe II hurricane by its hybrid name as well, and for a good reason:
    • It’s also not clear how being “hard to type” (your POV, not mine) has anything to do with anything. Titles should be “Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent” (WP:Article titles#Deciding an article title). Note that Recognizable and Easy to Find are the first ones on the list. These two are the attributes I am arguing the current title does not fill (unless, of course, the user comes from the United States). Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Please understand that talk page comments are not subjected to content policies such as WP:POV or WP:RS. The admin who closes this requested move has the authority to weigh each argument on its own merits, but repeatedly asking for adherence to inapplicable policies is not necessary. Respectfully, Juliancolton (talk) 02:29, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
        • I agree with you that POV and other article policies may not be applicable to talk pages, but I disagree with you that such article policies are not applicable to the title of articles. I say this becuase the title of an article is an integral part of the article and, as such, every policy that applies to the article must also apply to its title. The issue at hand here, from the beginning, has been that the title of this article does not represent a worldwide view of the subject matter, in simpler words, that the title is biased,,,POV'ed. It is in this context that I have objected to the your use of "hard to type" as that is not one of the guidelines for deciding on an article title (WP:Article titles#Deciding an article title). Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, but I never said the article's title is exempt from content policies. Juliancolton (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
          • You just said it: article titles need to be concise, and the proposed title is nothing but concise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
            • I didn't say the title should be Concise; Wikipedia says it: I am only the messenger. The value I added, I repeat, is that, above and beyond being Concise stands being Recognizable and being Easy to find. This Concise argument has been brought up before, I believe. And let me say this much, which appears to be missed so badly by the "above-all-let's-be-concise" supporters: Being concise is fine, but not at the expense of making the title unrecognizable (to a good number of people as you can see from this discussion), nor at the expense of making the article hard to find. I believe this is what the drafters of the “Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent” policy were doing when they drafted it that way. I don't believe it was sheer coincidence the line up ended up that way. There is a reason why Recognizable and Easy to Find come before Concise, and that reason is because being recognizable and being easy to find are more important than being concise. Hopefully, this point is clear now, if it wasn't before. And, look, let's not lose sight of what this Discussion is about: we are not asking for a handout here, we are not looking to turn the title into the "1928 San Felipe Segundo hurricane" (which would be equally biased as it would ignore the horrific effect the hurricane had in Florida). What we are saying is, let's not ignore the horrific loss it also caused in the Caribbean and let's honor the memory of the suffering in both places equally well if there is an opportunity to do so and still stay within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. It seems to me that such small accomodation should not be that difficult for most fair, unbiased, reasonable people to understand and agree with. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is: that the current title does not provide a worldwide view of the subject.
What I am saying is: that people in the Caribbean have never heard of Okeechobee (the name, the location, or the hurricane) before and that we should include the name San Felipe as a better way to describe the article for their benefit.
And what I am saying is: that any new title should incorporate the name Okeechobee as well so that users from the US will not be left out either. Hope this helps.

As for the name "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" that you referenced as not being used in the Internet, you may be right. But your implication is that that is a bad name. We need to understand the context in which I was presenting this: First, what we are saying is, let's make it a title that contains both "San Felipe" and "Okeechobee" in it. This means any variant of either one (San Felipe/San Felipe Segundo/San Felipe II/etc) and (Okeechobee/Lake Okeechobee/L.Okeechobee/etc). It could be as long as

"1928 San Felipe Segundo/Lake Okeechobee hurricane",

or as short as

"San Felipe/Okeechobee hurricane".

We also need to understand that before the title change was brought to this forum, it was discussed, quite comprehensively and for several days, in THIS PLACE. One of the editors there who opposed the change to "San Felipe anything" commented that s/he "would be fine changing it to '1928 Lake Okeechobee hurricane'". As such, I then proposed in this current forum that both his/her "Lake" part be added in addition to my request for "San Felipe" to be added. But we need to understand that this is not the only way the title can read and still please those of us that object to the current title. We are willing to compromise. If editors object to the "Lake" or the "Segundo" parts, I believe that can be accomodated too. In any event, eliminating those two parts will make the title shorter (undoubtedly pleasing some) while still keeping it unique, unambiguous, and precise (pleasing others). Hope this helps.
IF, however, what you are saying is that "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" would be even harder to find when googled because nobody else calls it that, then perfect!!! That means it would turn up only the wikipedia article thus making it Easiest to find yet, right? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose It is more commonly know as the 1928 Okeechobee hurricane. In fact, I never heard it be called the San Feliepe hurricane II. Look at the 1915 Galveston hurricane (which caused the majority of damage as a hurricane in the Caribbean) or the 1939 California tropical storm (which was once a hurricane). Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
I looked at the two storms you mentioned. What is the point, though, that you are trying to make with those two references? Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Can I just ask, how much is there to be gained if the title is moved? The article has been featured with the current title for four years. The title works with its conciseness and how it's easy to find. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, one thing to be gained is that this Discussion will be over. I am not trying to be funny here, but the fact is that you will gain the respect of those of us who feel very strongly about titling this hurricane with a title that is foreign in the Caribbean, where this hurricane caused 40% of the deaths and, by far, the bulk of the financial loss.
  • You also attempt to find support on the fact the article has had that title "for four years". The fact is that in 5 days from today, on June 13, 2010 (see Note on Name), it will be four years since this title problem was first identified (SeeHERE) And even if it hadn't been brought into question before, how is that an argument against rectifying an existing problem? If we all thought that way, Blacks would still be slaves, women wouldn't wear pants, and man wouldn't have walked on the moon. You get the idea...
  • Finally, you argue that the article is easy to find as it is now. I don't think anyone here is saying it is not easy to find. The question is "easy to find, for whom?" Some are saying it's easy to find for us, and others are saying it's easy to find, but for them! If you are from the USA it will be easy to find; if you are from the Caribbean it will not be so easy. But again, overwhelmingly, the important issue with this is whether or not the title is Recognizable to most people, and, again, it is recognizable to people in the US, but not so to people in the rest of the world, especially the Caribbean. The title is just not Recognizable worldwide. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Strongly Agree This name change fully meets Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines, the current name does not. The Fact of the matter is that this one Hurricane has 2 names. This should be reflected in the article title. The damage and path of the Hurricane can be fully appreciated with a dual name in the title and not expressed solely as a regional disaster. This convention should be applied to all past Hurricanes which have damaged more than one geographic area in their path. I believe this to be the intent of NOAA in referencing this hurricane on their websites (are they not the authority on Hurricanes?). Quazgaa (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Just how does the current name not meet the neutrality guidelines? NOAA gives storms particular names. Look at the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane - it also affected Texas severely, but the official sources point toward the one name. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The current name is not neutral for reasons you and I already discussed at (THIS PLACE). The #1 problem is that the current title does not provide a worldwide view of the event (i.e., it is not Recognizable in the largest number of places possible).
NOAA does not give storms particular names, the WMO does that. And the first (Atlantic) hurricane that was so named was hurricane Betsy in 1956 (which, btw, the US would most likely have called the "1956 Lake Pontchartrain hurricane" -- how's that for a tongue tiwster!) In the Caribbean, per Catholic tradition, hurricanes have had unique names since 1508, more than 100 years before the Pilgrims arrived at Plymouth Rock. That means that the Council of the Indies had been consistently naming hurricanes for 269 years before the United States existed in 1776. Even when the Florida Keys hurricane took place in 1919, the Caribbean had been consistently naming hurricanes for 411 years already. (By the way, NOAA didn't exist until 1970; that is a full 51 years >after< the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane, so NOAA couldn't had named that hurricane.) The United States, meanwhile, in 1919 still didn't have an official method for naming hurricanes. In fact it did not yet have an "unofficial-but-standard" method either: it used a mix of "standards" (places, days, "great"ness, etc) until eventually one of them "stuck" in the media, etc. I hope this helps. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
All of my two hurricanes the I referenced also caused severe damage elsewhere or was more intense then it was. It should remain the same, it been an FA for ages. In addition, the majority of deaths were in Florida. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
I disagree with your rationale. Approx. 40% of deaths occurred in the Caribbean. Certainly those lives are no less valuable than the 60% deaths in Florida. In addition, I remind you that just in Puerto Rico alone (i.e., without adding the rest of the Caribbean), there was $50M in material damages. Damage in Florida was half that. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • What's more official than NOAA? I believe the 1919 Florida Keys hurricane article title should also be changed. Per NOAA - Atlantic-Gulf Hurricane 1919: link Also note San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane 1928 on the same link. This emphasizes my point of devaluing a hurricane's path which affected multiple regions with just a regional title. That's why its not neutral. For Hurricanes that affected a single region (New England Hurricane 1938) this is not the case and its title properly describes its history. I also believe that because an article has been FA or not is not a reason not to improve an article. I actually believe that if the name is changed, It will bring more visits to the article as it more accurately depicts the Hurricanes history. As for the comment of naming a hurricane based on the number of deaths in a particular geographic region, that's just distasteful and immature. Quazgaa (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly Agree The current name hinders access to information for people interested in and knowledgeable about Puerto Rican history. I also wish to protest the language employed by Moni3 above, which is full of profanities and a direct attack of another Wikpedian. I would recommend cleaning up the profanities.--Lawrlafo (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If you put profanity in your recommendation I just might consider it. Otherwise, profanely suggest that Mercy11 apologize for assuming I'm some drive-by bumpkin who farts out votes without any consideration for sources or Wikipedia policy. Or common sense, for that matter.
As for your rationale, I don't get it. --Moni3 (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
There where so many hurricanes that affected multiple regions? Fro example, lets look at the 1915 Galveston hurricane, most of the hurricanes damage was in the Caribbean Sea. If this were to be moved we might as well rename the 1915 Galveston hurricane to the 1915 Cuba-Galveston hurricane. Same applys with the 1949 Texas hurricane. if we used you logic it would be titled the 1949 Central America-Texas hurricane. Also I never heard of San Felipe? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Yellow Evan, you might be correct in some of what you are saying. However, this discussion is not about renaming other hurricanes, but about renaming this one. I wouldn't speculate about the possible names of other hurricanes: This particular article title is surrounded by a unique set of peculiar circumstances that make it the only one worth renaming. If there is any other hurricane article title that rises to the level of this one, and cannot think of any, but if so, they can be considered on an individual basis. What are these circumstances: Fact is this article's title has been questioned from almost the moment the article was created on Janury 6, 2006, SEE HERE and the creating author was forced to attempt to justify the title within just 5 days (on January 11, 2006) after creating it CHECK HERE. On top of these, the defense for the article's title was not generic: It specifically addressed San Felipe Segundo. I think if we stay focused it will be of benefit to everyone. Hope this helps. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
That is not true. San Felipe Segundo Hurricane links directly to this article. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
(1) What is not true?
(2) Yes San Felipe Segundo Hurricane links directly to this article, but what we are saying is that the title should include that name directly - not just by linking it. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 06:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong agree Not sure what there is to debate. The links to official hurricane authorities provided above clearly indicate that San Felipe is just as valid a name to use for this article as Okeechobee. The double name (with accompanying redirects) seems like a no-brainer solution here. Zeng8r (talk) 01:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose as per Moni3, Juliancolton, and Hurricanehink (above, from your first effort to push your preferred name, which is incorrectly placed at the top of the page, throwing the whole page out of chronological order). The proposed name is atrocious. While I'm not going to use the same language Moni3 used, her anger is thoroughly justified by Mercy's uninformed comments. Moni has written six featured articles on the Everglades (among her 17 featured articles), and accusing her of "drive-by" voting is extraordinarily arrogant, not to mention flat-out incorrect. As to the title, San Felipe Segundo Hurricane already redirects to the article and is mentioned in the lede, which satisfies Wikipedia:TITLE#Treatment of alternative names, the relevant portion of the article name policy. Your proposed name does not. Further, since this is the English Wikipedia,and the more common name in English is Okeechobee Hurricane, not San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, the article should remain at its current location. Horologium (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Addendum Noting the list from Mercy11 in this diff, most of them refer to the "San Felipe hurricane", not "San Felipe Segundo". Further, the first reference is the same as the fifth (different site, same report). Horologium (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Another addendum There are five other language versions of this article; Catalan; Spanish, French, German (good article), and Polish (good article). None of these are located at anything resembling San Felipe Segundo hurricane; all five have the word "Okeechobee" in the title. (ca:Huracà d'Okeechobee de 1928; de:Okeechobee-Hurrikan (1928); es:Huracán Okeechobee (1928); fr:Ouragan Okeechobee; pl:Huragan Okeechobee (1928)) All five articles note the alternate name in the lede, but they are all located under Okeechobee, not San Felipe Segundo. Horologium (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Just going to throw my $0.02 into this debate, I feel that the article should remain at its current location. We have redirects for a reason...If someone looking for the storm types in San Felipe Segundo Hurricane, they'll just be taken to this article, no big deal. This whole thing, IMO, is just like how society (at least in the United States) is going. Arguing over the smallest of things so that everyone can be seen equal, with no discrimination whatsoever. Seriously, is all this time really needed to decide what to name article which people spend less than two seconds reading the title of? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree-San Felipe is the name by which it was known in Puerto Rico, the first large United States jurisdiction it hit in the Caribbean and in neighboring Caribbean nations that were impacted by it. Following President Kennedy's Dec. 15, 1961 speech stating that PR is part of America, in "America" it was first known as San Felipe, so that should be an essential part of the title of any article describing this particular storm. Having wrought much damage while known as San Felipe and before it hit Florida days after it was already known in JFK's America as San Felipe, is another reason I also fully agree with the proposal. Finally, on a lighter note, we should all be in agreement that NOAA's dision years back to give one proper name in alphabetical order to each hurricane has been one of its best ideas ever, perhaps other than installing Doppler radars! Pr4ever (talk) 06:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Note on the decision-making process of this discussion:

I'm not sure Mercy11 fully understands the implications of this process. We're talking about renaming a hurricane for God's sake, just we few Wikipedians. That is a gross abuse of this website and nowhere near the responsibility the site should take. This website should in no way reflect our personal opinions about any topic. We are merely here to reflect what has already been published in reliable sources. This collaborative process should assist us in realizing other source points of view and neutrality, but we merely act as mirrors to what already exists. To rename this article to give more weight to the storm's effects in Puerto Rico is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE weight because it is blatantly obvious the preponderance of source material about the storm refers to Okeechobee. If I must continue to add to that list of 14 sources--one of which is published by NOAA--that do not acknowledge San Felipe in any way, I'll do it.
As to the motivation behind this potential rename, I'm concerned that it is unfortunately easier than adding professionally written sourced material to a (featured) article, which is considerably much more work but which would actually accomplish ten times more by informing readers how the storm affected Puerto Rico. This is one of my most disturbing frustrations with this site. These processes and arguments make us lazy activists, making us think somehow that the energy we put into talk page arguments is equal to or greater than adding sourced content and improving the article for readers.

Invalid arguments in this discussion:

  • To provide a worldwide view of the topic if that view is contrary to source material
  • State or territorial pride
  • Egalitarianism, or a way to be seen as equal (i.e. the title hinders access to information for people interested in and knowledgeable about Puerto Rican history per User:Lawrlafo)
  • Issues with spelling or typing
  • This is the way it's been for a long time
  • What other Wikipedians might think of us, either that we may curry favor with individuals or be viewed as more open and tolerant (i.e. Mercy11's you will gain the respect of those of us who feel very strongly about titling this hurricane, the fact that Mercy11 contacted editors sympathetic to Puerto Rican issues to inform them of this discussion [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. I left a message at WP:FLORIDA [44]. No one has yet left a message at WP:Tropical cyclones.) --Moni3 (talk) 12:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment {edit conflict) almost all of the editors in the hurricane wiki project have voted against the move. Also, this debate is starting get Lame. Also, also nobody need to leave a message at WP:TROP, all of the main members (Tito, JC, HH, CB, JR, myself) are well aware of whats going on. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
    • Yellow Evan, that's great news! As only "almost all of the editors" (I will take your word; I haven't done a tally), but not all, this means that a group of editors in the hurricane wiki project agree it would be acceptabel to add the San Felipe part to the title! Thank you for the observation! Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
What? Did Yellow Evan just say that most of the members of WP:TROP were notified of this discussion and did you take that to mean that they all agreed to the rename? There is a serious disconnect here. --Moni3 (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Actually, exactly zero members of WPTC have expressed support for the move. JulianColton, Jason Rees, Titoxd, Hurricanehink, Cyclonebiskit, and Yellow Evan are the only members of the Wikiproject to discuss this move, and all of them have expressed opposition. The only people who have expressed support for this move are the editor who proposed it, four editors who he canvassed, and two editors who responded on their own (Zeng8r and Tony the Marine). Horologium (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I responded on my own.El Johnson (talk) 22:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment - Ive notified WPTC anyway since some users wont be aware of whats going on.Jason Rees (talk) 13:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: Someone created a link from the existing title ("1928 Okeechobee hurricane") to the proposed title ("1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane"). I point this out because that link was not there yesterday, but it's there now! Obviously it was just created ... midstream through the middle of this Discussion. Unfortuntely, even if you go to an older edit of this discussion, it no longer shows the "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" part in red (meaning, Page does not exist) on the first line (of the discussion) as it used to. This would had help demonstrate my point. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what is objectionable about that. Redirects are cheap. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 23:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • Tito, you are right they are cheap, but this one was cheap and disruptive. Good faith redirects are beneficial. However, this redirect is questionable as it was performed unilaterally and on the very subject of the discussion. It is also questionable because of its timing: it was done after the start of this Discussion and while the Discussion on precisely that title change was ongoing. It is further objectionable for a third reason: Since a redirect using the identical requested move title has been created, it now has the effect of weakening the force behind the reason for the requested move of the title. The more proper approach would have been for the editor to have informed the group about his intention – at a minimum to report it after the fact. Neither happened. It is disingenuous to make such a change midstream. I hope these few lines help you understand what is objectionable about it but, if they don't, let me know and I will try to help further. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, but the requesting user has unfairly canvassed this discussion on several editors' talk pages. Not impressive. Juliancolton (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Julian, How is it unfair? It would be unfair if, for example, some higher authority forbade you (or, in general, the side disagreeing with the move request) from making other editors aware that a Discussion of possible interest to them was ongoing. But to say it is unfair when you have not been precluded from similar actions is, IMO, just not the right assessment. I am not sure what causing you to say that. Please explain and I’ll do my best to answer.
Also, as for your choice of the word “canvass”, again, that is that is your own characterization of it. There is a difference between “canvassing” and “notifying”; please forgive my frankness, but most people will readily recognize the difference between those two. My work involved a neutral offering of participation that was both nonpartisan and open for the world to see, all while directed to a very limited number of wikipedians (as it has already been observed elsewhere here). There is nothing there that even comes close to what the "canvassing" implies. Again, please forgive my frankness, but I see your characterization as an exaggeration -- and exaggerating reality is not going to help the cause of anyone in the "Opposing" side.
Look, I want to explain something here: I am not here trying to "impress" anyone, Julian, but to see if the title of this article can be changed to something more neutral, something that will be a reflection of the non-Florida-only view of this subject. You seem knowlegable about hurricanes. You are one of the handful of opposing editors here (forgive me if I don't give a number, tallying things up is not my job here), one of the handful of opposing editors here who has not claimed ignorance with statements such as "I never heard it be called the San Felipe hurricane" or, "all the sources I've read refer to this as the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane", both of which are dead giveaways that the person has never read even the very 1928 Okeechobee hurricane article that is the subject of this discussion (for "San Felipe Segundo hurricane" is already given in the opening statement of the article...and, in boldface). This brings up another point: One user above had pointed out that "Okeechobee" and only "Okeechobee" was in the title of the articles in other languages' Wikipedias. The intention there, I suspect, was that -- again -- "no one has ever heard of 'San Felipe' ". Unfortunately, those foreign articles prove nothing: anyone who can read English will be able to tell that the Spanish "Okeechobee" article was created as an automated translation from the English Wikipedia. And for the other several foreign articles mentioned, even if all you know is a little Latin, you will quickly see they are no more than a (manual or automated) first paragraph translations from the English Wikipedia as well. BTW, did you know that the word "hurricane" comes directly from the Spanish huracán, which comes from the word "Juracan", the storm god of the pre-Columbian Puerto Rico Taino indians, whom they believed lived in the El Yunque mountains in eastern Puerto Rico? (CHECK HERE and HERE.) I suspect you did, just wanted to share that in case you had missed going that deep into hurricanes. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • At least three of the editors above who voiced their "strong agreement" were canvassed here by Mercy11, and some replied with peculiar comments (eg. "Done!") Juliancolton (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes!, you are absolutely right: one editor commented "Done!". However, I cannot understand why it would trouble you that someone said “Done”. I read that editor’s comment (and in fact, read it again to try understand the reason behind your note above). But when I first read it, way back before you even posted this note, I just read it to mean just what it means – “Mercy, I have provided my input.” And now I still read it that way. I can't find anything else in that response that could be objectionable. Maybe you can expand on how that can be so objectionable to you.
One last point: Highly notorious for its absence in your objections "report" is the fact that none of the other editors that I notified chose to join this Discussion. That’s the beauty of Wikipedia: everyone gets the same chance to provide input; whether they do or do not join the discussion, that is their decision: "It's a free world" - truly applies here. The editors that were contacted were free to support or to oppose the title change. They made their own decision to agree or disagree with my title change request, plus they made their own decision to support or oppose the request I was presenting. I am not sure why you have an objection to that. That editor's response seems quite reasonable, acceptable, and fair to me. If there is anything else I can do to explain further why changing the title is the right thing to do, ask it and I will try help. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
@Mercy 11, I do understand that Okeechobee hurricane is not the full unbiased name of the hurricane and I agree with you. However, I feel that the name that you have proposed is too long. What if the other storm names (San Felipe Segundo etc.) are mentioned in the lead? That way the article title does not get excessively long and all the hurricane names are mentioned in the article? --Yueof theNorth 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Anhamirak, I agree with you that the proposed title may be too long, but only from the perspective that there are other shorter options for this title (and not from the perspective that it is too long per se -- there are plenty of longer titles in Wikipedia, such as THIS ONE THAT JUMPS TO MY MIND RIGHT NOW). This is one reason why I have brought this to this forum, to hopefully come up with a title that will be acceptable to the majority, while still being unbiased. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • COMMENT I am a 32 years old Puerto Rican and, unlike the name of "San Felipe II", I had never ever heard the name "Okeechobee" when referring to that hurricane; and I like to consider myself as fairly knowledgeable in general history, especially that of my country. That said, I do think the proposed name is fairly complex. I would ask if there have been a similar situation in any other article to see something of a precedent where to move towards. Also, the fact that most online sources mention "Okeechobee" is probably because the US has a bigger, more consistent and thorough collection of old news, articles, etc. on the web. Still, despite this, I could find several articles with the name "San Felipe II" as I googled "Huracan San Felipe 2 1928":
  • ...and that was only on the first page of my Google search. I also have a high school textbook titled "Historia de Puerto Rico", which uses the name of San Felipe to refer to the 1928 hurricane that hit the island. So I don't think it's that easy to dismiss the "San Felipe II" name. Perhaps a compromise would be to call the article "1928 Caribbean hurricane" or something along that line, while mentioning both names at the beginning of the article. Thief12 (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Significantly, these sources are not reliable. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

There clearly is more than one plausible title. I think "1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane" is too long of a title, and others such as "1928 Puerto Rico-Florida hurricane" or "1928 Greater Antilles-Florida hurricane" are just confusing (and certainly not recognizable). Here is an excerpt from WP:TITLE

Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such as different spellings or former names).

There rarely are article titles that are that long that contain two possible names. It is invariably one title, with redirects from all other possible titles. If us at the tropical cyclone Wikiproject are biased for trying to maintain a stable and concise name, then surely the other side is biased for trying to force in an alternative name. --Hurricanehink (talk) 03:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I just noticed that NOAA lists it as "San Felipe-Okeechobee Hurricane" on their page. So, if that's the case, then why not follow that title and redirect "1928 Okeechobee hurricane" and "San Felipe II hurricane" to the new article? Thief12 (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Even NOAA is contradicting itself, since they list more than one name. The tropical cyclone WikiProject has long used this list from NOAA for hurricane names before real names were used. --Hurricanehink (talk) 04:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but that list limits itself to "Hurricanes which Affected the Continental United States", whereas I don't think the article should limit itself to a US point-of-view. Plus, the mention of "Lake Okeechobee" on the list seems more of a mention of the place where the hurricane hit IN "CONTINENTAL US" rather than an actual name. If NOAA has another list which encompasses a broader point-of-view, why not go that way? Thief12 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thief is correct. For example Hurricane Betsy (1956) occurred in 1956 - after the US started to use the "new names". Betsy affected the Caribbean, and not the continental United States. Thus, the 1956 Betsy hurricane is not found in the list that the TS wiki project has been using. Thief is also correct that the list is not listing hurricane names, but hurricane locations instead. This matter has been discussed briefly here before. More discussion is warranted: The TS wiki project consistently recognizes the existance of "no name" hurricanes in the U.S. throughout its articles by using double quotes (occasionaly, italics) for those hurricanes that have no name but simply a location (those ~pre-1956). And, yes, this includes the so-called "Okeechobee" hurricane. This can also be observed in this very article we are discussing, at the Table titled "Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes" (but ask me for more articles if you wish to; there are many).
If you have a historical mindset you will see why this no-name situation had to be this way: Hurricanes are not a US phenomenon, but a Caribbean phenomenon (to be more specific, they are an oceanic phenomenon that substantially always affects the Caribbean first and that virtually always affects only the Caribbean in the greatest measure). Thus, it made sense the Caribbean had a mature naming system for hurricanes before the U.S. did. This is why it has been stated here before that "San Felipe II hurricane" is the one only legitimate name of this hurricane...but that we are also willing to compromise and accomodate the "Okeechobee" view.
As one additional historical note: only after U.S. warships experienced considerable hurricane confusion during WWII did it realized it needed a consistent hurricane naming methodology for hurricanes (and not just Atlantic hurricanes, but around the world). Only then did the U.S. sit at the WMO table to discuss the subject. Please read my explanation above about the ethymology of the "English" word hurricane; it should help start filling in some historical "holes" that others here seem to be experiencing.
One last important point: If Puerto Rico, and not just the Caribbean, keeps popping up here, there is a reason - Puerto Rico is the easternmost of the Greater Antilles. This means it is among the most likely, (and, really, the most likely) populated place to be hit by a hurricane after it forms (they form, btw, in the east, near Africa). This unique global location between the two hemispheres, incidentally, has been a blessing for Puerto Rico, but also a curse. A curse, but not just from the meteorological perspective, but a political curse as well. It turns out that because of its unique global location, Spain held it as a colony for 400 years, and because of its location the U.S. has too (colony, territory, whatever,,, but has held it) for the last 100+ years So, as you can see, Hurricanelink, this discussion is not about territorial zeal (territorial as in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, the official description of the place), but about which is the rightful name of this storm. If we think locally, the name would be "Okeechobee", but if we avail ourselves of the full historical picture, it becomes a lot easier to see why the current title of this article is just incorrect. I hope this helps. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not an incorrect title. It's what's used by the majority of sources. --Moni3 (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
American sources, which will undoubtedly refer to it by the name of Okeechobee. Thief12 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Even this NOAA report from 1928 refers to the hurricane as "the second San Felipe" on a table in page 8. Thief12 (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes. Quite. That's pretty much my point. The most reliable sources, both in authority and number, refer to the hurricane as Okeechobee. This is what the title should be based on. If the preponderance of source material called it San Felipe, I'd be agreeing that the title should be changed. Once more--and I've made this point twice already--of the 14 sources I listed at the top of this section, one of them is a NOAA source that does not recognize San Felipe. I stopped at 14. Simply type "Okeechobee hurricane" into Google scholar and see what you find. Then compare that with "San Felipe hurricane". --Moni3 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
See my above response, but also Google "Huracan San Felipe 1928" and you'll see your share of sources referring to it as "San Felipe II" as well. Thief12 (talk) 01:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane

Hello all: It is my understanding that this forum will close in 1 day. It appears there is a reasonable amount of support for the name change; but it also appears that some contributors cannot fully support the change on the basis that the proposed title ("1928 San Felipe II/Lake Okeechobee hurricane") is judged to be too long.

As such I would like to propose that as an alternative we use the following modified version of the originally proposed new title. From what I can gather, this is what most editors really want:


Why am I proposing this new title?

Because I sense this is the fair way to go on this.

Why do I sense this?

Well, because:

(1) It includes both San Felipe and Okeechobee in it
(2) It uses the same format (year-name-"hurricane" word) as the other articles in the wiki WP:TS project
(3) The current title does not include "Lake", so nothing is lost from the old title
(4) The "II" part (Note: this is the same as "Segundo") is not needed in the title since, with the presence of the year there ("1928"), it is no longer necessary to use "II" to differentiate this hurricane from the September 13, 1876, "San Felipe I" hurricane[3]
(5) And probably most important, this proposed title name is used by NOAA to refer to this hurricane as it has been previously pointed out by some contributors.[4][5]

We will, I propose, use the name "San Felipe" before the name "Okeechobee" in the title, since we rarely see this cited/written/documented as "Okeechobee/San Felipe".

Comments, if any, are welcomed.
Either way, thank you for your participation!
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Support Although I refused to vote initially, upon reading that NOAA actually referred to it as "San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane" on their page, that won me over. I think it's the most reasonable option, IMO. Thief12 (talk) 00:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support the suggested name of "1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane". Seems to be the most concise working title that still remains neutral. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Thank you for bringing about a reasonable solution to this whole controversy. My support is more or less for the same reasons as the comments above by Thief12 and Arbitrarily0. Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 04:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support --Yueof theNorth 19:39, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Others here have clearly explained how the current name fits the policy for naming pages. It is best to have redirects from other common names, and have one name here based on the most common sources. Inventing a "compromise" name here is not at all how wikipedia works. No offense to folks from other cultures, but for the English wikipedia, English sources have more weight, and it seems clear that most English sources use something close to the current name. --NealMcB (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I make the following observations:
      • You have commented as fact that the "current name (sic: title) fits the policy for naming pages". The fact is this has been a disputed matter from the beginning (see the various references about the "Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent" above.) It has been argued that the current name does not fit the policy for naming pages as it is neither Recognizable nor Easy to find outside the US. I just wanted to point out to you that you are stating an opinion, and not making a statement of fact.
      • Second, the criteria you are choosing to base your position on is "the-most-common-sources criteria". Fair! However, you failed to identify what those "most common sources" are, and how you arrived at such conclusion, namely, that "the most common sources are: Sources X, Y, Z, etc." Doing so, would have helped everyone tremendously, as it would had taken the guesswork out of what those most common sources really are.
      • The statement that "compromise is not how wikipedia works" is incorrect without any qualification, which is the case in your edit. Please see WP:COMPROMISE. No offense -- as I don't mean this as an attack on your good faith -- but fact is even a bit experience will tell you (again, the generic you, not the personal you) that you get a lot further if you are willing to understand the other side and to show flexibility in your position. These are very important traits when attempting to achieve a title in which neutrality will no longer be a subject of dispute. The other option is almost always an impasse.
      • The “inventing” characterization you included is not sustained by the facts: No one in either side is "inventing" a new name. It is an undisputed fact that the name being proposed already exists in the literature (Example: HERE)
      • The statement that “other cultures…English sources have more weight [in the English wikipedia]” is based on two faulty assumptions: (1) That only editors from non-US cultures are the ones supporting a title change; (faulty because this hasn't been stated and proven here yet) and (2) That English is not the/an official language in those “other cultures” and therefore that they do not produce English language sources. This is faulty because, in fact, English is official in many Caribbean countries (including Puerto Rico). And English language sources from those "other cultures" have previously been provided here (for example, THIS ONE). The statement, thus, is invalid the way it is written.
      • Your good faith contributions could help move the discussion more expeditiously towards a conclusion if you could add a more solid rationale to your position, which I think most people here will agree came with a fair amount good faith, plenty of candor and, most importantly, a significant doses of non-bias. Thank you, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Even thou I agree with NealMcB in the sense that the first and official name of San Felipe Segundo should be the name of the article and the "popular" Okeechobee name should be a redirect. Since in its present form its like naming Katrina as New Orleans Hurricane, just because it was most affected. But in the spirit of consensus I agree with the new name.El Johnson (talk) 23:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support "San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane" as it is referred to by the NOAA. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin: this is not an issue for talk page consensus. Arguing on a talk page does not trump source material, which still clearly names the hurricane Okeechobee. Attempting to use consensus for this is abusing Wikipedia's purpose. There's something perverse about renaming a hurricane because the 20 or so editors who have chimed in on this discussion wanted to get along. --Moni3 (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This is surreal, saying that a group of people want to change the name of a hurricane when what they want to do is have the first and official name in the title. --El Johnson (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In this line of logic I will eagerly support your efforts to change the name of the Puerto Rico article to Borikén, its first and apparently official name. --Moni3 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
There is a difference; San Felipe Segundo is STILL its present and official name. It is obvious you are baised to the name as you are obviously from Florida or at least have some sort of attachment to the state, but there is no need to be rude, and unable to compromise, nobody has suggested that the "popular in USA (florida)" name be taken out of the title. Just that the STILL OFFICIAL name be also included.El Johnson (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Note to the closing admin:A lot of source material has been provided that clearly states that the hurricane is called San Felipe Segundo, yet some users apparently cant open those links. It is evident that some sources call it okeechobee, yet there are also sources that call it San Felipe Segundo, which was its FIRST and OFFICIAL name before people from ONE country started calling it by another name. So I ask you; WHO changed the hurricanes name. It is only been stated the its FIRST and OFFICIAL name has to be part of the title. Not that a "popular" and later name has to be eliminated from the title.El Johnson (talk) 01:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
This is surreal. --Moni3 (talk) 01:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
In this line of logic I will eagerly support your efforts to change the name of the Hurricane Katrina article to New Orleans Hurricane since that is where most of the damage happened and its how most people will know it.El Johnson (talk) 02:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
What sources have ever called Katrina "New Orleans Hurricane"? Is state or territorial pride the only way you can think about this issue? Is it possible for you to conceive that decisions are made, not on popularity, but the fact that the majority of sources refer to this by the name Okeechobee Hurricane? What am I doing here? Jesus! It's not a freaking popularity contest, not an expressive of pride for homeland. That's not what Wikipedia is. This is not a contest to be won. I can't believe I'm having this discussion. This is what is surreal. --Moni3 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
With all do respect you don't seem to listen to your own words.El Johnson (talk) 02:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Serious to God, is Allen Funt recording this? I don't even know how to express how confused I am that the most basic, integral component to verifiability is being ignored for what appears to be territorial pride. I couldn't give two shits that this storm was named Okeechobee, San Segundo, or the Tragic Doodle von Taintstain Storm of 1928. It's not about where I'm from or where you're from. It's about what the majority of sources call the hurricane. That doesn't make it a popularity contest. Far from it. At least, I think that's what your point is. Actually, I have no idea what your point is. I don't know why I'm still posting here. --Moni3 (talk) 02:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I think I would oppose this proposed renaming. A quick review of sources suggests that Okeechobee is the prevalent name in English language reliable sources. Why a redirect from San Felipe is not sufficient is beyond me. Can I make some comments on some sources used to support the 'San Felipe' name?
  • American Meteorological Society Monthly weather review article from 1928 uses San Felipe in Puerto Rico (I'll come back to this).
  • National Hurricane Center (NOAA): this page uses both names in different tables, referring to different locations. So it does not favour one over the other.
  • Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory (NOAA): this page uses both names in different tables, referring to different locations. So it does not favour one over the other.
  • Southern Regional Hqtrs (NOAA): this is talking about a book that talks about how some hurricanes were named after saints, including the hurricane in question. It is an example of a use of the name San Felipe, but not in this case by the NOAA; rather by a book (the status and age of which we don't know).
At the risk of stating the obvious (but which does not seem to be stated very often above), the name Okeechobee appears to be used in the United States and, as far as my limited review suggests, may be commonest in English language sources, while the name San Felipe is used in Puerto Rico and (I am guessing here) prevalent in Spanish language sources and in sources originating in some way within PR: example.
Having said all of that I would oppose the relocation of the article for two reasons. First, the proposed title appears to be an artifical synthesis of the two common names in the literature - the double-barrelled name is rarely used in sources. That does not make sense to me in terms of WP policy on being "Recognizable, Easy to find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent". The only valid options appear to be "1928 Okeechobee hurricane", "1928 San Felipe hurricane" or possibly just "Okeechobee hurricane". Of these valid options, I would favour the first or last, in terms of prevailing use in English language reliable sources. In this regard I note that the WP policy does not actually support the use of "official titles" of things per se, but even if it did, I don't see a compelling argument to say that this hurricane has one official name ahead of the other. Both are used by 'official' bodies. The emphasis in the WP policy overall is on following the reliable sources. So I suggest we stick to 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, with an explanation of the alternate name in the article, and a redirect. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • I am responding to your rebuttal of the validity (generally speaking) of the sources I presented in one of my edits above (THIS ONE), and I make the following observations:
  • On your "comments on some sources used to support the 'San Felipe' name:"
American Meteorological Society/MWR 1928 article:"uses San Felipe ‘in Puerto Rico’ "
Yes, the article uses San Felipe in Puerto Rico, but you seem to be implying that the MWR article was written to be read in Puerto Rico. If so, most people would disagree with you.
National Hurricane Center/NOAA: “uses both names”:
Correct. Exactly one of my points above.
Atlantic Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory/NOAA:“ uses both names”:
Correct. Again, one my points above.
Southern Regional Headquarters/NOAA: "this is talking about a book that talks about...some hurricanes"
This is incorrect. This SRH reference is not about a book (although a book is cited as a reference [and btw there are many such books]), this reference is about how the naming of tropical storms came about. BTW, even the title of the article ("Tropical Cyclone Names") will be a clue to the fact that this article is talking about hurricane names, not about a book as you state. Frankly, it is best to refrain from making such statements as they can misled those that don’t bother to click on the REFERENCE to explore for themselves.
  • You also stated that "the proposed title appears to be an artificial synthesis of the common names in the literature."
This is incorrect. It is an undisputed fact that the proposed hyphenated title is used by a number of reliable sources:
The U.S. National Hurricane Center
University of Florida
ABC NEWS
Florida International University
US Coast Guard
South Florida Water Management District
Historian William Sargent
Florida Dept of Environmental Protection
These sources use the hybrid form of the name. You were stating that "the name Okeechobee appears to be used in the United States...while the name San Felipe is used in Puerto Rico." Well this is a list of sources in the United States that use the hybrid, hyphenated form of the name,,, the one we are proposing in the relisted title change proposal.
  • As for your 2nd opposing reason:
Your Second opposing reason (which you failed to explicitly state) I will take it to be that "the Wikipedia Article-titling policy (Wikipedia:Article titles) does not support the use of 'official titles'."
The problem with this as an opposing reason is that you are opposing for a reason that has nothing to do with the proposed new title: Nowhere in the relisted proposal (that is, the text between Talk: 1928 Okeechobee hurricane#1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane and my (Mercy11) signoff) is the word “official” ever used -- or even implied. In fact, even the initial proposal never as much as mentioned the word "official". We are looking for neutrality, not “officiality”. The article’s title as it stands, does not exhibit the highest degree of neutrality. Neutral titles are those that encourage multiple viewpoints. This article’s title does not do this. The choice of article title should put the interest of the readers (US readers, Caribbean readers, world readers, etc) before those of editors. The current title does not reflect that. However, you are right in noting that San Felipe and Okeechobee are both used by “official” bodies. I think most reasonable people, as you are showing to be, will agree to that. I would be curious to know if you would also agree that we can equate sources from “official bodies” with Reliable sources. Thanks, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia titles are decided on the basis of usage in reliable sources, not of "official status" (whatever that may mean). From what I read so far in this debate, it would appear that the current title, or something similar to it, is the one used predominantly in reliable sources. Ucucha 06:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Ucucha, I am responding to your comments above:
As for your statement that "titles are decided on the basis of usage in reliable sources, not of "official status," you are opposing based on something that is not part of the rationale provided to rename the article: nowhere in the listed proposed title request does it even mentions the word "official status." So this is a non-issue.
As for the statement that "the current title is the one used...in reliable sources", I call your attention to the fact that "San Felipe" is used in other equally reliable sources:
National Endowment for the Humanities
Historical Society of Palm Beach County, Florida
NOAA
But what really matters here is whether the proposed title, 1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane, is used by reliable sources. And it is:
The U.S. National Hurricane Center
University of Florida
ABC NEWS
Florida International University
US Coast Guard
South Florida Water Management District
Historian William Sargent
Florida Dept of Environmental Protection
PBS
Hydrometeorological Prediction Center (NOAA)
US Army Southern Command
Fundamentally, what this means is that there is no consensus on the name of this hurricane even amongst the various reliable sources themselves. Even more, some reliable sources use the name the hurricane inconsistently within their own organizations, such as NOAA:
NOAA uses Okeechobee
NOAA uses San Felipe
NOAA uses San Felipe-Okeechobee).
It has been said that as editors it is our responsibility to report what is out there. The current title does not reflect that we have carried out such responsibility. Per Wikipedia policy, “when no consensus exists, consensus is established through discussion, "always" , it continues, "keeping as a guide the principles of Recognizable, Easy to Find, Precise, Concise, and Consistent." This is not happening right now.
However, your statement ("the current title…"is" the one used predominantly in reliable sources") implies that the current title is the one used in the greatest quantity of reliable sources. Such statement would constitute original research, unless you can provide a citation.
In any event, there is an element of unfairness when you (not the personal “you”) when you try to pity the quantity of reliable sources referring to the hurricane as Okeechobee and the quantity of sources referring to the hurricane as San Felipe. (Note the stress on “quantity”). Why unfair? Well, because everyone knows the U.S. – where the bulk of such "Okeechobee hurricane" sources come from – has produced a far greater amount of documentation for hurricanes, both in electronic form (read: Internet) as well as printed fashion. However, Wikipedia title-naming policy says nothing about deciding article titles based on the "quantity of citations". Your use of the word "predominantly" is a dead giveaway that you are looking at the quantity of instances the name Okeechobee is mentioned, instead of judging by the reliability of the sources that use the name San Felipe or the hybrid San Felipe-Okeechobee name, which is what matters. This is probably one reason why Wikipedia article-titling policy does not encourage consensus based on the quantity of sources, but on their reliability (WP:CONSENSUS). This, approach, of course, brings us right back to the fact that reliable sources refer to this hurricane by both names, San Felipe and Okeechobee.
In any event, note also that Okeechobee, unlike San Felipe, is both a location and a hurricane, again increasing the likelihood that you will find a greater number of references to Okeechobee. In other words, it is easy to mistake the use of Okeechobee as a hurricane name when all the source may be doing is refering to the "theater of operations", if you will, of the San Felipe hurricane.
Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose; most reliable sources still, in fact, refer it as the Okeechobee hurricane. And as WP:EN states in its lede, "The references for the article should themselves be reliable sources. If one name is clearly most commonly used in the English-language references for the article, we should probably use it." Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Tito, on the comment that “most reliable sources…refer to it as the Okeechobee hurricane, please look at my response to Ucucha above about the validity of quantity of sources. Also please explain how the sources I have listed there (NOAA, US Coast Guard, US Army, U of FLorida, US Government, State of Florida, County Govt in Florida, etc) are unreliable sources to you.
Also, the reference you make to WP:EN is not a Wikipedia policy, but a guideline. Just wanted to point out the difference. The reference I have provided before to article titles based on "Recognizable, Easy to find, etc." is a Wikipedia policy WP:Title#Deciding an article title. As such it has overriding weight over the guideline reference you provide. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Once again, this is clearly a better title since the links to official hurricane authorities provided above clearly indicate that San Felipe is at least as valid a name to use for this article as Okeechobee. The shorter double name (with accompanying redirects) is an absolutely no-brainer solution. The arguments opposing this seem nonsensical, imo, with an obvious strain of ethnocentrism involved to cloud judgment . Zeng8r (talk) 01:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong support for the same reasons, and let's move on! - Pr4ever (talk) 04:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: NOAA is still the best/overiding source and US authority on Hurricanes.(link). Quazgaa (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. The "oppose" !votes (mis)cite policy and wikilawyer themselves into a corner: the fact is that a qualitative look (rather than a quantitative google search) of the most authoritative reliable sources on the topic actually either use the propossed title, or use one or the other interchangeably. Perhaps, for me, the discussion ender is the NOAA, which is the Alpha and Omega when it comes to English language reliable sources on Atlantic Ocean tropical cyclones. If the NOAA acknowledges this is the name, then there you have a strong argument for it.

I see this form this perspective: does changing the title enrich or detract from the encyclopedic mission? Does it add or remove encyclopedic information? Does it help or confuse the reader? Is it encyclopedic?

I think the answer to these questions is that the proposed title enriches the encyclopedic mission, it adds valuable information, and it clarifies exactly what it is meant, right in the title. It is a fine example of how to do compound titles right, and is fully supported by reliable sources (ie this is not pulled out of someone's ass).

However, lets accept the the "quantitative" argument as valid (something I do not advocate) for discussion's sake. Lets say the closing admin leans to the oppose !voters' argument. In other words, lets wikilawyer:

NPOV is a five pillar level policy. It is generally felt by the community that all policies and guidelines are secondary to the WP:5P level policies. So, even if we misconstrue WP:TITLE position's on English language sources to mean what the oppose !votes say it does, it is irrelevant to the overriding fact that since a neutral POV alternative to the title is in fact supported by THE English language reliable source, it is our duty as wikipedians to adopt it. The current title is not neutral. It reflects the inherent bias of the focus of English reliable sources on how the hurricane was viewed in the major English speaking area affected by it, this inherent bias cannot be reflected in wikipedia, because we - unlike reliable sources themselves - are held to the standards of a neutral point of view. Since there is overwhelming evidence that English language sources do support a more neutral alternative - in other words, that a neutral alternative is not a fringe view in itself - we have all the policy reasons in the world to adopt it, and police based objections are rendered quaint by the importance of NPOV over any other policy arguments.

I dislike arguments based on policy and not encyclopedic quality, but I felt we needed to address what I see as the oppose !votes' incorrect and narrow appreciation of wikipedia policy. THey should focus on the much more important issues of fighting systemic bias by means of upholding the five pillars than the narrow stylistic considerations raised. I remain unpersuaded that changing the title to the excellent, realiably sourced, neutral, and encyclopedic title proposed harms rather than advance our mission and enhances the quality of the encyclopedic entry. --Cerejota (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Seeing this from the European POV it seems quite ridicilous to me to rename an article for the namesake's day of a saint. This is 2010 and this encyclopedia isn't the Catholic encyclopedia. --Matthiasb (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Seeing this from an (sic) European POV, there are two things that need to be clarified:
(1) The proposal on the table now (and THIS IS THE PROPOSAL ON THE TABLE NOW) does not say anything anywhere about Renaming this article for the namesake's day of a saint, as you are stating. The proposal says that the rationale being presented is that "this proposed title name is used by NOAA to refer to this hurricane." The proposal prefaces this rationale with reasons why neither 'Segundo' nor 'Lake' are parts of the proposed title, and points out that the format of the proposed title is consistent with that of similar articles about hurricanes. None of this says anything about the rationale your are relying on to support your "Oppose" vote (namely, "the namesake's day of a saint").
(2) Also from an (sic) European POV, in 2010, there are many European countries (including Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Russia, Scandinavia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey, among others) where days named after saints are known traditions. I am not sure what sort of authority you are attempting to represent when you claim "the European POV", but for now I tend to believe you are representing only yourself and, as such, to imply that yours is "the" European POV, is a BIT of a stretch.
As to your statement that "[Wikipedia] isn't the Catholic encyclopedia", I am not sure what the point you are trying to make is. Maybe you are trying to get everyone here to agree that nothing related to religion in generally (or Catholicism specifically) should be part of Wikipedia??? If so, I think most people here will disagree with you.
Thank you for your participation, Mercy11 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I was stressing the point, that there's no need to name a storm for catholic saints. BTW, tell me in which countries of the avove mentioned actually saints namesake days are holidays. Aside of several Mary's in Italy, France and parts of Germany I am not aware of such holidays. Most of the countries you mentioned even don't have a notable number of catholics. --Matthiasb (talk) 16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: It isn't Wikipedia's responsibility to compromise between English and Spanish-speaking sources to create and advocate a hybrid name for an already well known hurricane. There are 5x as many sources in Worldcat that mention a 1928 Okeechobee hurricane, as opposed to those who mention a 1928 "San Felipe" one, and Google's search results are similarly inflated in favor of Okeechobee. The fact of the matter is that more damage was done by this hurricane in the state of Florida than anywhere else; yes, of course, the article's subject matter and the title itself will reflect an American-centric POV, because that's what largely matters in terms of destruction. Wikipedia should reflect what the majority of the English speaking sources state, rather than the few that do otherwise. Also, as a name, 1928 San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane is stupid-confusing, and isn't even useful as a redirect. (es deprimente que esta página es mucha larga y combativa. No need to reply in large chunks of wikilawyering to me ;) María (habla conmigo) 16:05, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
commentUm, did you read any of the "support" arguments above, or note the sources mentioned? I'll highlight the main point: NOAA is the American hurricane reference, and their website refers to this as the San Felipe-Okeechobee hurricane, as do several other noted hurricane authorities. Nobody's proposing creating a "new name" or "compromising between English and Spanish speaking sources" here. The idea is to adjust the article title to reflect the accepted name of the storm. (On a side note, I'm frankly shocked at the xenophobia and/or ethnocentric attitudes on full display in this debate. I guess it was naive of me to think that wikipedia was above this kind of stuff.) Zeng8r (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any xenophobia here -- that's taking obvious frustration and pointed comments a bit far, I think. Anyone who might say that oppose !voters are being anti-Puerto Rican can definitely turn it around and say that support !voters are being anti-American. (But don't they know that "Puerto Rico's in America"?) However, whatever hostility that may be present is not made any better by the obvious canvassing that has occurred. I hope that whoever closes this discussion takes the above diffs, as well as the notes posted with prejudice to many of the supports' talk pages, into account. It's a good thing that consensus isn't won by sheer number of votes.
To answer your question, yes, I read the above arguments, and no I am not convinced. Perhaps it's because I'm an American, but the hurricane will forever be planted in the majority's mind as the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane, the Great Okeechobee Hurricane, or a similar variant. NOAA may list it as San Felipe-Okeechobee on one page, but on another, it lists it solely as the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane. Again, I see the proposed title as an unnecessary compromise, one that Wikipedia is not able to make based on a small number of sources. A simple Google search proves that the proposed title is little recognized. Do you know how many hits come up when you search for "1928 san felipe-okeechobee hurricane" (with quotes)? 43 -- the first result is this talk page. Take out the 1928, and the result is 148. On the other hand, "1928 okeechobee hurricane"? Approximately 170,000 hits. Although I'm aware that not all of these pages will be reliable sources per WP:RS, this should cement in our minds how rare such a proposed title would be, and how much Wikipedia would be in the minority to use such an unrecognized name for a clearly remarkable storm. It may seem like the level-headed, equal-opportunity choice to make, but in the eyes of the average scholars, historians, and curious readers, it makes very little sense. María (habla conmigo) 18:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm wrong, but my feeling is that if NOAA and other authoritative sources had referred to this storm as the "Okeechobee -Tampa or -New Orleans (or any other American locale) hurricane" and somebody suggested changing the name of the article to reflect this, it would have been changed without one dissenting voice, probably without any discussion at all. But look at this page! It sure seems to be that it's simply the potential use of a Spanish name that has people freaking out. Zeng8r (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of your fellow editors; there's no need to jump to conclusions. I of course cannot speak for every individual who has voiced their dissent of moving this established, Featured Article to a little-recognized title, but the fact that part of the proposed title is half-Spanish has absolutely nothing to do with it. It could be French or German, or Pig Latin for that matter, and the proposal would still be opposed by a variety of editors from a variety of backgrounds. A number of reasons have been given, and none of them seem to be "I don't like the name because it's Spanish". I happen to like Spanish; see signature for proof. María (habla conmigo) 17:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.
  1. ^ [45]
  2. ^ [46]
  3. ^ SRH/NOAA
  4. ^ NHC
  5. ^ NHC
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1928_Okeechobee_hurricane/Archive_1&oldid=1145854174"