This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
@Hurricane Noah: I think with this case it is best to go by "official estimate" since this is what the official report on Daniel says. The death toll stopped being updated a while ago and this is obviously a Nargis-esque coverup on the part of the Libyan authorities. Their figure cannot be trusted IMO. We should use the figures given by reputable sources in the official tropical cyclone report. Maybe a side note with the Libyan estimate. Undescribed (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That report is NOT and I repeat NOT official. There is no RSMC and it is simply done by a meteorologist on his own. WP does not exist to right wrongs. We go with the official and most widely adopted totals which come from the Libya government and subsequently the UN. Besides, it clearly states it is estimated and not confirmed. To say otherwise is WP:OR. Noah, AATalk15:04, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah: Well maybe there needs to be an RSMC for the Mediterranean Sea then, has anybody thought of that? So that issues like this dont arise? 4,333 dead and over 10,000 missing, a figure which hasn't been updated by the UN in weeks, why is that? Also, I would trust the UN figures over the Libyan authorities figures anyways. The (unofficial) estimate of the dead is 18,000 to 20,000 unless I am missing something? It says so right in the article. That many people just disappear and nobody talks about it? Will we ever know what the actual death toll is? Everyone cares more about an attack in Israel that killed a fraction of the people that Daniel did. That's politics for ya! Smh Undescribed (talk) 16:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to the "Source for Daniel being a tropical cyclone?" discussion on the issue. It must remain this way until an independent study from a reputable source comes out. And no CMISS and Metoffice do not count one bit. HavocPlayz (talk) 18:14, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NHC- A tropical cyclone is a warm-core system with a circulation of maximum winds closed around a well-defined center, with convection in the center, without fronts, developed over tropical and subtropical waters of the planet. Daniel's structure fits precisely into this description even without proving it with sources. It also presented convective and outflow bands.
For such a historic storm the section is severely lacking, especially since we have plenty of data to work with (as well as now a TC report from David Hernes [1])
Thoughts? Ikethecatto (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.". David Hernes is very reliable and has worked with EUMETSAT on mediterranean TCs
I see no reason not to use that source, though it should still be used with some caution. A quick search reveals David Herincs has a handful of other works, including an abstract over Cyclone Ianos.[2] Additionally, I see no suspect info within the source itself, and the source clearly provides observational bases for the meteorological history of Daniel it presents. Really, Daniel's meteorological history section is painfully underdeveloped for what is the costliest and devastating tropical cyclone worldwide in 2023, so this source could help fill in those holes. ArkHyena (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So as of 24.10.23 the death toll figure provided in the infobox is 11,000+. However, the three sources supposed to corroborate the number does not mention this figure or they are now obsolete. Yes, the situation with the deaths confirmation is deplorable, but for the lack of updates from reliable sources I would suggest that the lower figure of 4,000+ deaths be used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorgedweller (talk • contribs) 11:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When that figure has been blatantly shown to be astronomically underrepresentative of the true deathtoll from that disaster, and that it is a figure being knowingly and intentionally pushed by corrupt administrations trying to cover up for the disaster they are in part responsible for, then no. I cannot support using this lower figure. As it is a clear and blatant lie. It is an untruth. I suggest going with the estimates, and estimates alone. 2.98.194.37 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
