This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death 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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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.
At the least, I would exclude the second source (Hindustan Times) for quality issues and I would be slightly cautious using the third source (KPRC-TV). The third article links to a tweet from Carmine Sabia, who has spread misinformation before. The article text might be fine, but his tweet being included with the article gives me pause. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that you at least have enough sources. Feel free to give it a try in the Aftermath section if you wish or post your suggested wording here if you want it reviewed first. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article spends considerable prose on political conflicts of whether there were sufficient warning systems in place and who/what did or didn't do them.
The article is much less clear on the specific agencies (Federal? State? Local/county? police? NWS?) making the various specific (often, w time of day) warnings that were issued. Since it lists a bunch of warnings, at various times, it seems that the article prose should make clear who issued each warning? NWS? county authority? etc. N2e (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All warnings are NWS. They are the only Wx authority who can issue flash flood emergencies, and every warning in the article is an NWS byproduct. EF512:08, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, you could have a system like the one that was downstream where the sirens start going off when the river crosses a certain height. But I think we are using "warning system" in the article for those and all other uses of the word warning refer to NWS ones. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is stated that the response may or may not have resulted from cuts. However, it is reported that the staff was actually overstaffed at the time, even up to double their normal staff. Local meteorologists have said that the response was normal and that the media's reports were false. This should be added. 97.190.161.252 (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are primary statements from actual meteorologists.
That being said, the AP article states the same. In fact, it states the New Braunfels office was double staffed at the time of the incident. 97.190.161.252 (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Overstaffed" isn't an accurate characterization of holding in employees beyond their normal shift during an emergency. Geogene (talk) 20:10, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who works in the field, every NWS office "staffs up" before severe weather events. Typical NWS office staffing is 3-4. Check the NOAA firings, where up to 880 staff members were fired, and over 1,000 took the early retirement option. Prior to the 2013 Moore tornado, the National Weather Service Norman, Oklahoma office went up to an on-duty staff of 30 (nearly their entire staff). The office itself is understaffed, but forecasters worked overtime, ensuring the office wasn't actually 'understaffed' during the flood. Several editors of WikiProject Weather know me and could confirm WP:EX for me on this topic. I can work to word it correctly, but the Associated Press article actually was right; they were not understaffed at the beginning of the flood. Meteorologists just put overtime in (i.e. came to work when they were not originally scheduled too) to try to fill the vacancy gaps that do exist from the firings/early retirements. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The office is understaffed. Specific positions are not currently filled. They had to substitute those and hold people from leaving when their shift ended. That is why the article says it isn't clear how much of an impact, if any, that there were from the cuts. (Additionally, "the media's reports" in your initial comment is off. In the first few days, the initial coverage was about blame from Kerr County officials towards the NWS, though it seems to have been trimmed out due to more important things to cover.)
Please, this article needs a map of the flooding, and/or where the infamous summer camp was, or places with flood fatalities. Maybe also with dots on Dallas and Austin. If someone needs an organic chemical structure as an SVG, ask me, but I don't know how to do maps. Thanks. Fluoborate (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a map of where the summer camp was; it doesn't fit on the page with other more informative images. As for the flooding map, I'm not exactly sure how it'd be made. EF512:07, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One Texas Hill Country Topographical map could do something based on the SVG File:Texas topographic map-en.svg though the only way I can figure out how to have just the area affected is to export a portion as a png file. SVG does make it easy to edit though this is a complex map (i.e., my somewhat elderly computer is struggling a bit with it [I'm using Inkscape]). A rough first pass is what I have here. Note we likely want to add some locations. Thoughts? Erp (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone with MOS experience please look this over? It seems very much essay-like and unfitting of an article this currently important. Thanks. BrotherGunk (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed two paragraphs that just seem like background noise at this point. They were sourced to two opinion pieces, so at this point is just speculation, and two sources that predate the flooding, so we shouldn't even be directly connecting them to this flooding. There'll be true analysis by experts and academics, there'll likely be major reports. No urgency for Wikipedia to directly connect the responsibility for this flood to cuts made by DOGE. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"a rather a trivial fact, the 1921 flood has a geographic and a developmental connection" he explained.
I COMPLETELY disagree. That fact puts the flood in a broader context. So it's supposed to be "the deadliest freshwater flooding event in Texas since the 1921 San Antonio floods" but it is ALSO "the deadliest rain induced flood in the entire United States since 1976".
If the only context that matters is smallest possible context then maybe the article should be updated to reflect the fact that it's the deadliest flood in Kerr County EVER. Like who cares about where this flood ranks in the history of Texas floods when we can rank this flood in the history of Kerr County floods!
Likewise, maybe One World Trade Center should be updated. Instead of it being noted that that's the tallest building in the United States maybe the only thing we should note is that it's the tallest building on that particular block of Manhattan! After all, the narrowest context of all is what matters!</sarcasm> TerraFrost (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
while being the deadliest flooding disaster in the US in nearly 50 years is notable, it wasn't in the same (or nearby even) geographic location, and also, much as it not mattering much that it's in nearly 50 years as opposed to actually 50 years before, human brains just like round numbers like 10, 25, 50, etc, and it being basically 49 years since that flood doesn't "pop" as much as if it were 50+. I can see this going either way myself cause it is still notable, but I can also see why Drdpw would remove.
Also, I get you're frustrated, but try not to take any undos/removals personally, we're all trying our best here, and things like this will happen once in a while. AutisticLoser (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's an excellent point, and one I somehow didn't think of. I now have to say not including the mention of the 1976 floods in colorado would be better IMO. Certainly any deaths for Helene outside of the immediate Florida big bend coastline where all the surge happened could very much be argued to be rainfall-driven AutisticLoser (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there's also the fact that the death toll for this storm is still going up, and sadly could still pass the Big Thompson River flood even by the end of tomorrow. Hell, it could even pass the 1921 San Antonio floods and even Helene, but I really don't wanna even contemplate that right now AutisticLoser (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In rethinking the matter, I propose to rephrase the sentence to state, This event was the deadliest inland flooding in the U.S. since the Big Thompson River flood in 1976, and the deadliest in Texas since the San Antonio floods of 1921.Drdpw (talk) 06:06, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few citations back up these statements. The word freshwater can be added to the sentence for nuance. Also, going by the Helene TCR, this flood has surpassed Helene in number of freshwater flooding deaths. Drdpw (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As a compromise, I would support the idea,of saying "deadliest rainfall based flood in Texas since YYYY" or "deadliest rainfall based flood west of the Mississippi River since YYYY". Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!17:52, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
apologies for necroposting, but it is semi-relevant. If the death toll is at at 144+ (as reported by wxfatalities on Twitter https://x.com/WXFatalities/status/1945955102507815243 ) then this would tie the Big Thompson river flood for the deadliest inland flooding in the last 50 years, and one more would obviously surpass this, meaning that the line about it being the deadliest inland flooding since that flood would then be outdated. AutisticLoser (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To start with the first paragraph, it claims the following: 118 people confirmed dead; 56 adults from Kerr County; 28 children from Kerr County; 94 deaths were confirmed in Kerr; 8 in Kendall; 7 in Travis; 5 in Burnet; 3 in Williamson; 1 in Tom Green.The first source and the only source for the table verifies the counties other than Kerr, but says "including 30 children, were killed in Kerr County" instead. The second source links to a CNN live page, but doesn't link to a specific update. (Though, the citation saying the title is "Texas braces for more rain as death toll mounts to at least 82 with dozens missing" leads me to believe it is outdated.) Our third source is Newsweek, which is in the same situation. No specific update linked and outdated title. (Plus WP:NEWSWEEK.) The final situation is to Reuters, which has a paywall, but does confirm the 94 deaths in Kerr and with KXAN-TV would confirm the 118 dead. (Though again, the table only uses KXAN-TV) Or it should, but Reuters claims that "[r]eports from local sheriffs' and media have put the number of flood deaths outside Kerr County at 22" which would make the confirmed dead to be 116 compared to KXAN-TV's 24 confirmed.
The thing I cannot confirm so far from the four sources is the "56 adults from Kerr County" portion of the text.
For the second paragraph, we have the following claims: Several of the fatalities that occurred in Kerr County were young girls who were staying at Camp Mystic; On July 4, 27 were declared missing from Camp Mystic; number of girls missing dropped to 10 on July 7 with the same counselor still missing; By July 8, five girls and one counselor remained missing; Camp Mystic director Dick Eastland died; On July 7, CNN reported that 27 campers and counselors had died in floods at Camp Mystic.
Before we get into the sourcing, there is a problem with the second claim where 27 were declared missing. If you read the first claim, it implies that those 27 were all missing campers. If you read the third claim, then you might think that it was 26 campers and 1 counselor. If you read the last claim, then you would think that multiple counselors died and that there were at most 25 campers. To clarify this, reliable sourcing says "27 missing campers."
The first source in the paragraph seems to confirm the second claim by saying that "27 girls from Camp Mystic (...) were unaccounted for[.]" The second source is once again a CNN live page that doesn't link to a specific update. This appear to be the relevant source which does verify the claim and the "same counselor" part. There is no source for the fourth claim about those still missing. The fifth claim regarding the director is confirmable with the sources.
The sixth claim (and technically the first claim as well) is technically verified with the CNN live source: The all-girls summer camp that sits along the Guadalupe River has confirmed that 27 campers and counselors died in weekend floods. Ten campers and one counselor are still unaccounted for. As it might be apparent, the wording here makes it unclear how many are campers and how many are counselors, along with saying that there are ten campers and one counselor still missing, for a total of 38 individuals. There is nothing in the paragraph that suggests 38 individuals went missing.
Finally, the last paragraph: As of July 8, at least 180 people were missing; 161 in Kerr; 10 in Travis; 1 in Burnet; 1 in Williamson.
The first source is KXAN-TV who reports 172 missing, but does confirm the 161 in Kerr, 10 in Travis, and 1 in Burnet. It does not confirm the 1 in Williamson. The second source is another CNN live page article, but the linked update is over 24 hours old. Back when the number of missing was claimed to just be around two dozen. (Again, possible attempts to withhold information.) Moving to the third and last update, we have a malformed citation to The New York Times. Malformed as the article link takes you to archive.is and the archive link takes you to NYT. This is also a live updates page and this is also over 24 hours old, verifying nothing.
That means that we cannot verify that 180 are missing and cannot verify anyone is still missing in Williamson. (If you go back to the CNN link earlier in this section, you will see the line "Williamson County: 2 dead, 1 missing" while KXAN-TV says "3 dead" and implies 0 missing.)
As for the Camp Mystic, lets word it as "27 individuals dead" or something along those lines. Since it doesn't clarify how many of those deaths were little girls and how many of those were adults. Further comment pending. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!17:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the sourcing, I personally think WP:CALC could be invoked on some of this. I think both Reuters and KXAN may be reliable, depending on how recent the article(s) are. I would suggest looking at other sources including CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, other local stations in the area, the AP, the BBC, the Guardian, etc. As for Newsweek, it was GUNRELed a while ago. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!17:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As for the third paragraph, similarly, I'd source it with the most recent of the articles, with preferably multiple reliable sources backing it up. But otherwise, no real opinion on any of this. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page!17:47, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We had this exact discussion above in the WXFatalities section, given WXFatalities is a WP:CALC-based X account for weather event death tolls, which also timestamps when the information was released. To answer Hurricane Clyde from their edit summary/question: WXFatalities is run by Ryan Hall, Y'all's on-air news reporter, and it has been sourced by Yale Climate Connections & BNO News in articles, along with several broadcast meteorologists / reports on X itself, which is why it was sourced in the article. Currently, the 119 death toll is sourced in the article, but not directly "119" until 2 hours ago - NYT. It was indeed a CALC calculation from multiple sources being combined based on different county-by-county reports. CALC has already been invoked, and subsequently was invoked when WXFatalities was removed from the article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)18:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I should have considered pinging the WXFatalities group, but to me it felt more like a reliability discussion. In any case, I have considered CALC to be invoked and used, but the Reuters and KXAN sources were not lining up 100% and the others seemed outdated. (Also, I take it that I haven't convinced you on restoring the table, correct?) --Super Goku V (talk) 01:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To combine all of my replies: Newsweek is permitted, but on a case-by-case basis due to the generally unreliable concerns and I don't believe it was discussed (if it was, then my bad); No objections to how we word the Came Mystic details as long as it sounds consistent, though I am worried that some reliable sources and/or the article might be double counting; I am considering CALC as having occurred, but KXAN and Reuters were not lining up, so there is something that might be off; I agree on sourcing, but I couldn't find where we got two of the numbers. Also, no opinion on readding the table, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, the KXAN-TV article has been repeatedly updated and is difficult to archive, so using it as a stable article isn't possible at the moment. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, September 1921 San Antonio floods was moved to 1921 San Antonio floods. I'm wondering if this page should follow suit because to my understanding, there is no need for a disambiguation. There are no floods with Wikipedia articles that targeted central Texas in 2025 and are outside the month of July. I do understand that this incident is still very new and there are almost 200 people whose fates have not yet been confirmed, I just think we should lay our options on the table and consider. MountainJew6150 (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I confess, I was not aware of those floods. "2025 Texas floods" only yielded results for this incident. With that said, I'm still technically right. There are no floods "with Wikipedia articles that targeted central Texas in 2025 and are outside the month of July" as I originally said. Pulling from a highly publicized tragedy, the mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017, we should understand that that incident was not the only "shooting" in Las Vegas in the year of 2017. It's commonly called the "2017 Las Vegas shooting" when it wasn't the only shooting that year, and as a matter of fact, didn't even occur within Las Vegas' city boundaries. It actually occurred in the adjacent town of Paradise. Despite these obvious inconsistencies, Wikipedia upholds that it should be known as the "2017 Las Vegas shooting". So even if we had a flood in San Antonio, and a few deaths outside of the counties part of Central Texas during these floods, we should be able to agree that "2025 Central Texas floods" which has left nearly 300 people dead or missing and has a Wikipedia article, should be allowed to take that name even if it's not the only one. By calling this page "2025 Central Texas floods" we're not implying they were the only floods in Central Texas, just that it's the most notable flood that year. Heck, 2025 Central Texas floods already links to this page specifically. It's the same deal with the Oklahoma City bombing. Despite not being the only time a person detonated a bomb in city limits to spread terror, it doesn't require any sort of disambiguation in the title since everybody agrees that those words refer to the 1995 domestic terrorist attack.
Now that doesn't mean we have to agree with those positions but I have a very strong feeling that in 20 years, nobody will even know about the San Antonio incident due to the sheer scale of this incident. That's the mentality we took with naming the 2017 mass shooting I referenced and guess what? It worked. Nobody knows about the dozens, if not hundreds of shootings that happened in or near Las Vegas in 2017 and nobody ever assumes you're referring to them by saying the "2017 Las Vegas shooting". I think we can agree that it's the same, and presumably sound logic. MountainJew6150 (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is no article, but there oughta be one, as it's clearly notable (I'll start it tomorrow, lol). Plus, saying that nobody will even know about the San Antonio incident is WP:RECENTISM; it's way too soon to analyze which event will get more coverage (although it's likely this one will). Also, comparing >50 deaths to ~3 isn't the same as comparing 13 to 120. Sulphur, Oklahoma has been visited by two EF3 tornadoes in the last decade, and while the 2016 one had zero fatalities it is more well-known. EF522:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the flood (or at least the worst day of it) happened on July 4, a major US holiday, this might be remembered as the July 4th Texas flood. I would at least wait until the year is ended before dropping 'July' from the title though we all hope no future Texas flood will be anywhere near as devastating. Erp (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: I've reverted your removal of the CNN paragraph as community consensus states that CNN is a reliable press organization. The IP's comment was bordering Climate change denial, which isn't remotely encyclopedic. — EF522:15, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I never said CNN was or wasn't reliable; to be blunt, I'm not even considering that point. I can put 1000 facts in this article with completely reliable sources, but if they don't belong in this article, they shouldn't be there. There is nothing specific linking this singular event to Climate Change. The statement and the article only insinuate a connection. Per WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE, this should not be included. Buffs (talk) 15:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, looking up "climate change texas flood" I find numerous stories (including one from less than an hour ago) about climate change's role. So, I disagree about it being UNDUE, nor is it SYNTH (as it is sourced material). — EF515:29, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, some of the "articles" cited are only a few sentences long and expand upon small quotes with significantly exaggerated result,
for example: "The deadly flooding in Texas is yet another example of how devastating extreme weather events are becoming more intense and more frequent as humans continue to warm the world by burning fossil fuels. Extreme flooding is influenced by a tangle of factors, but a warmer atmosphere is able to hold more moisture, which can be wrung out in the form of more intense rainfall. “The tragic events in Texas are exactly what we would expect in our hotter, climate-changed, world,” said Bill McGuire, professor emeritus of geophysical and climate hazards at University College London. “Such events will only become more commonplace as the global temperature continues to climb.” Remember: Texas has already seen multiple dangerous flooding events this year, and the United States overall saw a record number of flash flood emergencies last year."
Note all the language couching their assessments and the sweeping statements insinuating climate change is to blame without outright saying it. In other statements, Texas ALWAYS has flooding events every year; all of them are dangerous.
In other articles: "An unprecedented 91 flash flood emergencies have been issued by the National Weather Service this year, more than any other year since this most-dire language was first used in 2003."
That's great, but it leaves out a pretty crucial detail buried in the article: "Note: Flash flood emergencies have been issued since 2003, but their wording was standardized in 2019, allowing for more uniform tracking." They've not had consistent standards for even 6 years. That's not a very good sample size.
Lastly, I'll leave you with this point. Mary Gilbert, in particular, is a leftist activist who actively pushes Global Warming hysteria. She routinely uses sensationalized language in her articles and I find her to be significantly less than credible. Buffs (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing against a point I didn't make about these organizations. I'm talking about a specific individual, not CNN as a whole. I'm saying her advocacy is left leaning/biased and she specifically is an activist who uses her position to push activism.
Yes, this will be a back-and-forth if everyone brought up is a perceived "leftist activist". Even Fox News is reporting on climate change in relation to this event. I see the way this is going, however, and I'll say that we'll just have to agree-to-disagree, although a third opinion (@WeatherWriter: perchance, since you seem to know a lot about this kind of stuff?) would be greatly appreciated. EF517:23, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
everyone brought up is a perceived "leftist activist" You mean the TWO people you brought up? I guess TWO people is "everyone" now? You're changing the standards here on a comment by comment basis. I said that your argument was poor because you/the source vaguely cited "climate scientists" which is just a way to make claims infallible.
As for bias, I was responding to your comment that these weren't biased (which they most certainly are...even WP:RSPS concedes that point). FoxNews reporting what Bill Nye said in an interview is vastly different than stating Bill Nye's opinions are facts.
The IPCC has determined that extreme rainfall events are becoming more common as a result of climate change, any source that denies this should be treated as WP:FRINGE[6]. Geogene (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware Fox is biased, that's the whole reason I brung it up. And cool down a bit, this is just an encyclopedia and we're trying to have a genuine discussion (but alas, we're at the point of personal attacks it seems). Again, we'll agree-to-disagree and I'd like a third opinion other than me or you, because we aren't going to agree on this any time soon with both our attitudes on the matter. EF518:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I myself think I'm past the point where I can constructively have a discussion, so I'll step back for now. EF518:24, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was pinged into the discussion, so I will provide my thoughts from someone who works daily in the field. Currently, the climate change paragraph (no longer purely CNN, so I will call it that hereinafter). The paragraph had four sources in the order I will talk about:
CNN 1 is a source only quoting a University College London professor. The professor uses the terms “would” and “will”. For example, “The tragic events in Texas are exactly what we would expect in our hotter, climate-changed, world.” There is no scientific backing behind that statement that the Texas floods were affected by climate change. This quote came out during the floods and was not an analysis of the floods. I do not approve of the use of this source, as it is just sensationalism and unbacked science statements.
CNN 2 is a source regarding a 2024 study. The study did not involve these floods, as it came out well before the floods. Conclusions made from the study were done entirely by the author of the article, CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert, who only joined CNN in 2023. Prior to that work, she worked at AccuWeather, which is already controversial to the point where part of AccuWeather’s publications are considered “generally unreliable” sources at WP:WXRS / WP:AccuWeather. Given all of that, I am not included to say she would be a ‘subject-matter expert’ in regards to climate change. Also, the article it literally 3 sentences. I am included to delete that mention entirely after this posting.
Climameter is a source posted after the Texas floods and is about the Texas floods itself. I would be inclined to include any information mentioned in this source pertaining to climate change and any such connection to the floods.
CBC.Ca is a news article regarding the Climameter study. It is safe to include this source as well.
So, after my brief analysis above, I would be included to remove all the CNN mentions of climate change regarding the Texas floods. Honestly, I don’t think CNN itself is a good source regarding the topic of climate change in general, especially since we just proved above non-subject matter experts can publish regarding it. Anything made after the floods that is about the floods itself is almost certainly safe to use, but in this exact discussion/exact case, immediate removal of all CNN sources is my recommendation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)18:45, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that was premature, and don't understand why we're humoring an editor who says things like, Mary Gilbert, in particular, is a leftist activist who actively pushes Global Warming hysteria. Geogene (talk) 19:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree wholeheartedly. I have put back much of the relevant information and updated the citations there. If a broader consensus is reached to remove the articles we can remove them again but I see no problem in including them, personally. Ixgauth (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What we have is 3 to include and 3 to exclude. That's hardly a conclusion for inclusion. Likewise, Weather Event Writer clearly laid out reasoning for exclusion. You've decided they should be included, but have not yet explained why. Buffs (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this assessment overall. I would add to the fact that the statement about all of North America is very vague/broad. This could literally apply to any event of any kind to say "See! They were right" when it may or may not apply. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixgauth: & Geogene - Per WP:ONUS, the burden of proof for inclusion is based on the editors wishing to add the content. In my big explanation above, I questioned whether the CNN article, written by Mary Gilbert, met the standards to be a scientific, reliable source subject matter expert on the topic of climate change. I notice the re-addition by Ixgauth, so if I may ask, could you provide some clear reasoning that shows she qualifies as one? I'm just wanting to see if your re-addition was truly just because consensus was still split on whether CNN is reliable or not (in general), or whether there was an actual disagreement to my dispute on her subject-matter expertise on the topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:11, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@WeatherWriter: CNN is generally considered a reliable source. The claim, that global warming is increasing the frequency of heavy rainfall events, is consistent with established scientific consensus from a World Meteorological Organization page I linked to earlier in this subsection. I see no reason why a subject matter expert is required for such a sky is blue statement, especially when the claim isn't even coming from CNN but from Climate Central, as evidenced by the text, According to Climate Central..... Your focus on whether or not one person at CNN is reliable, when CNN is reliable, and Climate Central is reliable, for a statement attributed to Climate Central, is frankly, strange. As for consensus, I see no evidence that consensus is against inclusion, only two editors trying to edit war content out of the article that has previously been discussed on this page and has been included for a couple of days now. Geogene (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I will add that @Buffs: is misrepresenting facts in this edit [7], the IPCC consensus is mentioned in that source. Has Buffs received their CTOP notification for Climate Change lately? Geogene (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To quote the source, In the IPCC AR6 report, Chapter 12, assigns high confidence to positive observed trends in extreme precipitation over Central and Eastern North America. Moreover, there is high confidence that high precipitation will increase over the same area with ongoing global warming.[8] Is it asking too much for you to read a source before you claim something isn't in there, @Buffs: ? 21:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC) Geogene (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So now we've got a dubious tag [9] because CNN's reliability on this topic has been questioned by multiple editors on the talk page, but that's not accurate either, because I only count two editors who have stated a problem with it, one of whom thinks CNN is categorically unreliable on everything related to climate change (even when they are simply reporting what Climate Central has said), and the other has made remarks in this thread that they think it's some kind of liberal "hysteria". Geogene (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is now the third time you've made a snide remark about me. In every instance, it's an exaggeration. Three people have made edits accordingly (an IP, myself, and Weather Writer). On the flip side you have Ixgauth, Geogene, and EF5. That is a roughly even split and there is no consensus for inclusion. Furthermore...
You've made no argument about the content and applicability (which is what's in dispute) of what was in the CNN articles.
You ascribed opinions to me that I have not made like "CNN is categorically unreliable on everything related to climate change". I said nothing of the kind. I said one specific author AT CNN was problematic and WW contended they were not an expert.
"they think it's some kind of liberal 'hysteria'" I never said "liberal". I said leftist. Given her employment history, her own Linked-In profile, and many other tidbits of information, I believe it's an accurate assessment. There are reasonable and unreasonable assessments of the environment and what we should do. Her assertions are much closer to the latter than the former. Buffs (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In what way does a person being a leftist exclude them from having legitimate credentials? Simply you personally disagreeing with her does not make her unfit to be cited. Especially given that CNN has chosen to host her point of view and their credentials are unquestionably accepted. You also note that she only joined CNN in 2023. Is two years somehow not long enough to provide her with credibility as a reporter? Ixgauth (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because that four sentence article isn't actual reporting. No interviews or actual scientific backing for her statements. It was her own analysis. The CNN meteorologist herself wrote four sentence connecting a study that occurred before the floods to the floods. Wikipedia requires a subject-matter expert be well published in their field for the topic they write about, especially for their own analysis. For example, Timothy P. Marshall is a subject matter expert on tornadoes and weather-related forensic engineering, but not climate change. Remember, the topic of climate change itself is a contentious topic, meaning sourcing must be more rigorous. Is the sole justification for the inclusion of a four sentence analysis the fact it was published by CNN, a news organization? There was no academic publication. This was a CNN analysis. By my own job, I am a meteorological news reporter. Does that make me an expert on climate change? No. I could also write up my own analysis linking that 2024 study to the 2025 floods, but that does not mean it is a good source for Wikipedia. That is my exact issue. To put my issue in a plain simple statement: I do not believe a four-sentence analysis on climate change, a community decided contentious topic, by a CNN reporter which no one has shown is a reliable source on that topic, justifies inclusion to an already controversial topic. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to request Geogene strike and apologize for their earlier statement regarding me: "...one of whom thinks CNN is categorically unreliable on everything related to climate change". I never stated that fact at all. In fact, if CNN wrote an article on the Climameter study, I would absolutely vote to include it. My issue is with a reporter themselves making the connection, without a peer-reviewed, scientific study making the connection. I seriously do not see why that is an issue for anyone. Heck, as a reporter myself, I've been cited by news articles. But that does not mean I am scientifically qualified to make that connection...let alone make that connection in 4 sentences. So please, strike the earlier false statement you made regarding my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think he was talking about the other editor who has specifically made statements to that effect. Which, I might add, is who I was asking the question of as their statements do call into question their judgement on the matter. Ixgauth (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to talk about me, at least have the decency to tag me. You both keep making disparaging comments that misrepresent what I stated. I never claimed "CNN is categorically unreliable". I stated a notable percentage of Wikipedians believe they biased based on what is clearly documented community consensus at WP:RSPS. I request you strike that claim. Buffs (talk) 16:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out what in my post above was disparaging? I asked you why being a leftist was disqualifying for a writer and then I asked why two years was not enough time to be credibly accepted as a member of CNN's team. Neither of which are disparaging. I will not be striking either of those questions. Ixgauth (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"their statements do call into question their judgement on the matter" is a snide, disparaging remark.
The fact you acknowledge their leftist bias is sufficient for me.
1. I do call into question your judgement as you have made specifically political statements attacking an author. This calls into question your neutrality. If you would like to tell me why you feel it is acceptable to use the phrase "leftist activist who actively pushes Global Warming hysteria" and still uphold neutrality on this position I will reconsider given the information you provide.
2. My question to you is why is leftist thought disqualifying. You are very clearly trying to push your own political ideology into this article.
3. You, yourself were the one who brought up that she "only joined CNN in 2023." I am asking how that is relevant to this discussion as you have implied that it somehow makes her less reliable.Ixgauth (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm "attacking" people? Oh brother. I'm not neutral and neither are you; any claim to the contrary is absurd. We all come to the table with our own set of biases. That doesn't mean I'm incapable of putting a neutral statement together and neither are you.
It was a descriptor, not a rationale. Despite how much you frame it as such, I'm not trying to push a political ideology. I'm attempting to make this article comply with WP:NPOV and other relevant policies
You, yourself were the one who brought up that she "only joined CNN in 2023." I am asking how that is relevant to this discussion as you have implied that it somehow makes her less reliable. I did no such thing. I've never stated it is relevant to the discussion. In fact I've specifically stated to the contrary The quantity of years as a reporter is not the contention. We are contesting her quality of work. I request you strike that remark as it is misleading and specifically claims something I never did. Buffs (talk) 19:12, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. That is a fair point in the abstract. However, I believe using the phrase "global warming hysteria" does not constitute a neutral statement. This is the attack that I am referring to.
2. The main reason you have called into question the authors validity as a source is that she is a leftist. As such, it is germane to the discussion to ask why you feel that makes her an unreliable source.
1. It is my opinion, not an "attack" and not what I'm advocating should be in the article. NPOV does not apply 2. That is not the main reason. I've explained it ad nauseum below and you do not seem willing to accept it. 3. You've actually not struck it. You edited/deleted your own commentswhich doesn't follow our guidelines and substantively changes a discussion. Please restore and mark it accordingly. Buffs (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Your opinion" can be an attack when it is combative and disparages the person in question.
2. If that is not a reason for which you feel she is unfit to be cited here, please strike the original comment from the record.
Thank you. As for the rest, I said what I said and I will stand by it as it is That is a fair point in the abstract. Striking it or not at this point will not make any substantive difference. Your characterization that it is the "main reason" is incorrect. At this point, I think we're at loggerheads and it's probably best we both disengage. Have a good day. Buffs (talk) 20:20, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would kindly ask you to stop disparaging me. This is the second time you've made a disparaging remark to me. WP:AGF might be a good read. I looked 3 times for the reference mentioned and obviously I missed it...because it was in the SECOND source mentioned. This is the problem when people just start adding references. When you quote an article, you are supposed to put the reference immediately after it, not add an additional source that doesn't even mention the quoted/paraphrased material. In fact, the first source doesn't include anything in the statement about the IPCC and doesn't belong there at all! Buffs (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, the IP edit you're referring to must be this one [10]. Edit summary: remove garbage lunatic left wing CNN tries to inject climate change hysteria into every weather event. Did CC also cause the 1927 floods with 500 dead...or 1913 flood with 650 dead, or 1887 Yellow River flood with 900,000 dead. Very credible, easy to assume good faith.... Geogene (talk) 22:21, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the discussion has moved to the RFC Below. Please comment in the RFC if regarding the CNN article. Any other discussions in this section should remain in this section. Only the CNN article discussion has been moved to the RFC. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a general consensus towards the given CNN story on this article constituting undue weight. There are a few trains of thought: the story is rather short in the grand scale of things, CNN or the author are not necessarily an authority on climate change, or that we simply should not include it because it is a part of a larger happening. These exact reasons do not have consensus, though. This discussion did not decide if sections relating specific events to climate change should be included, if CNN or the author are or are not a reliable source in regards to climate change, or that links between this event and climate change should be permanently removed from the article. More discussions would have to be undertaken for those specific points. ✶Quxyz✶21:22, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Background
Several editors are in disagreement (see discussion here) regarding whether the CNN article and subsequent information should be included or excluded in the article. Previous discussion became mixed with various points of views, and long paragraph text-walls, which led to an unclear and messy discussion. It also became mixed with other topical discussions, also leading to a messy discussion.
Option 2 – Exclude – The four-sentence CNN analysis is a source regarding a 2024 climate change study by Climate Central. The study did not involve these floods, as it came out before the floods. Conclusions made from the study were done entirely by the author of the article, CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert, who joined CNN in 2023 and, to the best of my knowledge (and the knowledge of other editors following requests for searches/WP:ONUS sources), who has also never published anything academically regarding climate change. Prior to that work, she worked at AccuWeather, which is already controversial to the point where part of AccuWeather’s publications is considered "generally unreliable" sources at WP:WXRS following community discussions; see WP:AccuWeather for direct link. In terms of this specific, four-sentence news article, there is no mention of the Texas floods, and it appears a CNN reporter themselves made a connection between the 2024 climate change study and the 2025 floods. Therefore, I am against the inclusion of this four-sentence article. If CNN published regarding a post-flood academic study which links climate change to the floods, I am all for the inclusion of it. I am against the inclusion of CNN-based analysis (themselves) regarding pre-flood climate change studies. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)03:46, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – Include – The CNN report clearly cites the study as background on preceding increased rainfall, so asserting that "The study did not involve these floods, as it came out before the floods" is spurious. IPCC AR6 similarly provides useful context. Note thatAccuWeather’s News reporting is considered "generally reliable"; see WP:AccuWeather – "There is a general consensus that AccuWeather is a reliable source for reporting weather-related news. As noted below, there is an exception, which is when AccuWeather reports damage estimates." No mention of damage estimates here. . .dave souza, talk05:02, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – Include – reliable sourcing is clear that global warming makes these kinds of floods more likely, e.g. as a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture. Blythwood (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 - include - The only sturdy basis for the CNN source being undue to use is bias, which WP:RSPS clearly contradicts. Excessive rainfall has been consistently linked to climate change. EF512:04, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also note that none of WeatherWriter's other reasonings particularly sway me, specifically the painting of a reliable source as "controversial" for reasons unrelated to climate change. Also note that this RfC only applies to CNN; removal of all climate change mentions would 100% need another RfC. EF517:16, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, this RfC only applies to specific articles and claims by a single reporter from CNN within these specific sentences, not CNN at large. Buffs (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion, would ya? So far you've replied to all but one "option 1" vote. And the RfC does mean this CNN article as a whole; read the opening statement (there's no mention of a specific reporter). EF517:39, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 – Include – As I have noted in the above topic I am in favor of this being included without a tag stating that it is questionable. The only argument that I can see that has been made against it includes an attack on the character of the author for being a leftist which does not have any bearing on the correctness of the information. Ixgauth (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I am the only one to oppose its inclusion thus far, I know that biased statement was directed at me: “The only argument that I can see that has been made against it includes an attack on the character of the author for being a leftist”. At which point, Ixgauth, did I oppose it because the “author is leftist”? Did you miss the point where I stated, “If CNN published regarding a post-flood academic study which links climate change to the floods, I am all for the inclusion of it”? So, please indicate where I am opposed to its inclusion for the author being leftist, or please strike that part of your statement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:17, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was directed at Buffs, not you. Buffs pointed out that specific journalist was a "leftist activist" pushing "climate change hysteria" (in quotations for reference, not for sarcasm or anything) earlier in the conversation, which is where that comes from. EF515:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs hasn't commented in this discussion. The whole point of the RFC was to separate the different viewpoints from the previous messy discussion. In theory, only comments in this discussion are relevant in the actual RFC outcome. If it is directed at Buffs, it should be striked entirely, since it can confuse editors coming to the RFC without coming from the previous discussion. RFCs send notifications to other third-opinions noticeboards/editors as a way to gain uninvolved-editor opinions from the community. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:24, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's referring to the pre-RfC discussion when talking about the "bias" part. What led up to the RfC is just as relevant to the RfC itself; I see nowhere saying that previous comments can't be referred to. EF515:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs was involved in the previous discussion. I see no reason that simply changing the heading under which the discussion should result in any of us having to forget the basis under which other editors were arguing against inclusion. I will not be striking anything. Ixgauth (talk) 16:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but just confirming, the entire comment regarding the “only” opposition was to Buffs and not me? I am opposed to its inclusion, so the word “only” would also apply to me. That is why you should clarify. EF5 thinks it was intended only for the opposition by Buffs in the pre-RFC discussion. But, since you included “the basis under which other editors were arguing against inclusion”, that makes it seem plural. This is the exact reason I started an RFC…to get away from messy discussions and poor wording. This whole comment has turned this into a messy discussion since I’m confused on if the word “only” applies to my opposition as well. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)16:11, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all are reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest. The "only argument" statement is patently and demonstrably false. There are many reasons for exclusion (as WW wrote above). added Pretending that's the only one (or even the primary one) is academically dishonest and unethical/a logical fallacy. (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I stated that the argument “includes an attack on the character of the author”. I see no way in which that is false. I did not say that was the only argument but instead that that argument included an attack. Which it does. Ixgauth (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You even included the word "includes." This notes that it is part of the argument being made — which it is. Please strike your note of gaslighting. Ixgauth (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean there is more than one argument/point, then clarify it. What you are saying now runs counter to "The only argument". Gaslighting is an appropriate assessment. Buffs (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The only argument" and "The only argument includes" are demonstrably different statements. I used the latter, as you did, in fact, attack the character of the author in your argument. I will not be striking it. Ixgauth (talk) 17:52, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Exclude The exclusion is due to the content being WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. Given the plethora of arguments put forth, I'm gonna address each one and quote large portions of what WW wrote):
I find numerous stories...about climate change's role. So, I disagree about it being UNDUE, nor is it SYNTH (as it is sourced material). Just because there are "numerous stories" doesn't mean these two sentences represent the body of information. WW and I concur on that point.
Just because something is mentioned in a reliable source doesn't mean it merits inclusion within Wikipedia. To quote from WW's statements above, conclusions made from the study were done entirely by the author of the article, CNN meteorologist Mary Gilbert). In terms of this specific, four-sentence news article, there is no mention of the Texas floods, and it appears a CNN reporter themselves made a connection between the 2024 climate change study and the 2025 floods. Therefore, I am against the inclusion of this four-sentence article. If CNN published regarding a post-flood academic study which links climate change to the floods, I am all for the inclusion of it. I am against the inclusion of CNN-based analysis (themselves) regarding pre-flood climate change studies.
The first link is a source only quoting a single University College London professor who did no analysis about the Texas floods themselves. The professor uses the terms “would” and “will”. For example, “The tragic events in Texas are exactly what we would expect in our hotter, climate-changed, world.” There is zero scientific backing behind that statement that the Texas floods were affected by climate change. Since this is not an analysis of the flood or its sources (and just speculation it might be involved), inclusion that it is a basis of these floods is synthesis and does not represent a neutral point of view (thereby violating WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV). As WW stated "it is just sensationalism and unbacked science statements". struck as this is not part of the RfC. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second link is much the same, but with substantially less content (just 4 sentences) and involves a 2024 study. "Conclusions and connections made from the study were done entirely by the author of the article" without a peer-reviewed, scientific study (or any outside entity of any kind) making the connection. It is upon this basis I assessed that it was done to further a "leftist hysteria". This article in particular fails the standards of journalistic integrity. Likewise, considering her a subject matter expert in a contentious topic like this requires a higher standard per WP:SPS and WP:CTOP.
WP:RS/WP:RSPS Though multiple people have contested that it shouldn't be excluded because CNN is a reliable source, no one is alleging they are not a generally reliable source. There are numerous sentences backed by CNN reporting throughout the article and literally no one is contesting them, much less WW or me. Other components of the atmospheric precursors and/or climate change are not contested either. The issue at hand is these specific articles. I would feel the same about them regardless of the source (even if it were FoxNews or HuffPost).
The inclusion of Austin in the listed statement is further evidence that this is not an unbiased statement. Austin is over 100 miles away from the major rain event in question, yet it is included.
Addendum: I said she's not reliable for this instance because of WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV, not everything. It isn't because I "don't like [her] (alleged) politics". Her work is quoted throughout the article and I have not contested those. Framing it this way is unseemly.
Option 1 – Include The IPCC has determined that heavy rainfall events are likely intensifying in North America due to climate change, [12] and there's no reason we have to have a subject-matter expert beyond normal journalistic reporting to make that connection. Trying to declare a meteorologist unreliable because you don't like their (alleged) politics or because they used to work for Accuweather is disruptive. Speaking of disruption, mere juxtaposition is not synthesis, I don't know why Buffs is invoking WP:SPS because these are not self-published sources, and WP:CTOP is not a content policy, and as for WP:UNDUE, there are many other reliable sources discussing the event in the context of climate change, it just looks to me like this is Wikilawyering, or perhaps WP:EXHAUSTGeogene (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 – Exclude The IPCC has not determined that this flood event is part of a pattern of climate change driven intensifying heavy flood events. Also, regarding the CNN piece, the connection between the pre-flood 2024 climate change study and the 2025 floods is purely non-expert analysis. If, down the road, there comes along a post-flood academic study linking climate change to the floods, I will support including that. Drdpw (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that isn't the IPCC. Adding the two together is WP:SYNTH. Example: "X said Abc would be more likely.<source 1> Y says Abc happened because of Event Z.<source 2>" Concluding X said Abc happened because of Event Z is linking the two together in a manner that isn't allowed per WP:SYNTH. If we would include it, it would be included under source 2, not source 1. Likewise, this is outside the scope of this RFC. Buffs (talk) 19:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"X said Abc would be more likely.<source 1> Y says Abc happened because of Event Z.<source 2>" This example you gave would not be synthesis, only the juxtaposition of two different sourced statements. See WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION. Geogene (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good source for relevance of the IPCC, not SYN, but agree that this RFC is framed as trying to dispute a CNN source. . . dave souza, talk19:47, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 - Exclude. This is a point of discussion for almost major weather event. It's becoming the new normal, which soon will be become part of "climate", and a part of the Anthropocene era. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything needs to be included. WP:DUE. What makes this four-sentence CNN analysis significant for this big Wikipedia article? Why should four sentences by a single CNN meteorologist get the same weight (or even more weight based on it having a longer sentence/mention) in the article as a whole academic study on the floods? If it is normal, why do those four sentence have to be mentioned? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)21:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Have increased the mention of the "whole academic study", which therefore has more weight on that basis, and is usefully supplemented by the CNN article[s] which are more readily informative for the general reader. . dave souza, talk17:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: What makes this four-sentence CNN analysis significant for this big Wikipedia article? Thank you for asking. Because, WP:NPOV requires that All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic....This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus. It's not important to me if CNN is part of the sourcing in the end (beyond my belief that you have not justified your opposition to CNN with policy) and there are many sources that could be used instead [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc. Also it seems to be customary to mention climate change in Wiki articles on tropical cyclone and flooding articles. Hurricane Helene has a paragraph on climate change, while Hurricane Sandy has two. Floods in the United States (2000–present) mentions climate change, stating The floods were widely reported by media as an example of how climate change is increasing extreme changes in weather, especially cycles of precipitation and drought....Climate change is intensifying the water cycle. This brings more intense rainfall and associated flooding, as well as more intense drought in many regions. It has been both predicted by scientists and observed in the last years and documented by the IPCC (International Panel for Climate Change 6th assessment report). which is the gist of what this article should have. Geogene (talk) 21:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that whole explanation, you don't seem too convinced that these four sentenced by CNN are that important, if you even admit they might not exist in the article once all the discussions are done. The generic reasons I keep seeing to include it seem to boil down to: CNN said it, so we must include it, even if four sentences regarding a pre-flood study are being given more weight than a full academic paper directly on the floods. I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree that these four CNN sentences are important/unimportant to readers, and wait for everyone else to chime in. So far, it is a very clear split WP:!VOTE consensus. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)22:00, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(quick comment) Because that's the whole focus of this RfC - whether the CNN source itself should be used or not. — EF522:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I have unhidden the dubious/discuss template, but I replaced the text that was hidden in the template with your rewritten text. The four-sentence CNN analysis article is being discussed in general for whether it should be included or excluded in the article. So, the dubious template is still necessary while this RFC is ongoing. In the end, this RFC should hopefully have a consensus on either: ‘The four-sentence CNN analysis is important to cite in this article’ or ‘The four-sentence CNN analysis is not important and should not be cited in the article’. Hopefully that explains why I readded the dubious tag to the rewritten sentences. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:29, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't know why we should replace the text with the rewritten version. This rewritten version seemed like a compromise by adding more specific language about what the source says. If that results in no change to anyone's point of view on its validity I don't see why it should be changed in the first place. Ixgauth (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward 2, exclude, for WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH reasons. This is a trivially short piece of reportage (from a writer whose credentials, where discernible at all, are tied to an unreliable outfit). A probably unreliable writer, who cannot be confirmed as a subject-matter expert, being quoted or otherwise relied upon by us appears to be undue. That it was published in a source that is routinely deemed reliable for most purposes does not by magic make that particular writer's tiny bit reliable. There is no publication that is 100% reliable for 100% of topics and contexts. As the material behind that micro-article was studying the same region but before these floods, trying to use that material to say something about this recent flooding does appear to be synth. I do not buy the WP:NPOV argument. There is essentially no neutral party on this sort of topic, anywhere, at all. And the science is overwhelmingly supportive of climate change, global warming, and recent to current effects thereof, while climate-change denialism is firmly in WP:FRINGE territory. However, this tiny bit of material from a questionable human source (at a news site, which is a weak source type for any kind of science, and an American news site, which is an increasingly dubious source type for anything that is a hot subject in American politics) does not seem to be encyclopedically useful as source material. There is surely better, deeper material with higher-caliber authorship in quality journals, or there will be very soon. For experienced Wikipedians who do not presently have regular access to major journals, see WP:TWL for how to get it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 12:47, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like we should have a centralized discussion at WT:WEATHER. Several articles are affected by such climate change connections and I have seen some arguments here that also bring those into question. I personally lean more towards not including such statements in general, instead it should be placed at Tropical cyclones and climate change and other centralized articles, unless there is in depth scientific studies about the given event in climate change. ✶Quxyz✶13:00, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Of all of the responders mentioned, why is the Cajun Navy and Texas Task Force 1 and 2 not mentioned at all. There's a lot talk of what the government agencies did but not a whole lot about what larger NGOs have done. Cajun Navy, arguably, has rescued and helped more than the National Guard or FEMA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.147.159.27 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the NOAA "Excessive Rainfall Outlook" prediction chart in the "Preparations and impact" section is from 1430Z July 04 - but that is several hours *after* the worst of the flooding had happened from the main rain event, around 0900Z on July 4. If it is available, it would be appropriate to use a prediction map leading up to that timeframe instead, in order to better illustrate the accuracy of the predictions. As it is that map only shows the prediction for the later rain that didn't result in as much flooding. Jasgstock (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This would more accurately be considered a "Criticism of Republicanism" subsection, because it now includes climate change (which used to be in the "Background and meteorological synopsis" section, where it belongs) which is famously unpopular with Republicans [20], criticism of Trump's National Weather Service, "Effectiveness of evacuation alerts", which is really criticism of local Republican officials who did not implement a county-level warning system, criticism of Trump's FEMA, and finally the cloud seeding conspiracy theories currently popular with the Republican base. As far as I can tell, the only thing these topics have in common is that they could be seen as being critical of Republicanism. Otherwise it's hard to see why climate change would be lumped in with conspiracy theories. Geogene (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that it's trying to unfairly lump everything together, although I don't think it's just Republicanism. I think the analysis of the forecasts should be moved to a sub-section of "Preparations and impact", since it's talking about the forecast discussions. That shouldn't be at the end of the article IMO. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the one who moved the climate change link material paragraph, not because of any political bent, but because it fit better, IMO, under analysis than it did under background and meteorological synopsis, I like Hurricanehink's suggestion. And I agree that analysis does not belong lumped together with misinformation/conspiracy theories. Drdpw (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for moving the paragraph, there's an argument for mentioning aspects of it in the background, but my intention was always to discuss it in the context of "Analysis, criticism, and misinformation". It's needed to meet WP:WEIGHT and WP:PSCI so that the misinformation is in the context of scientific mainstream views: Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. .. dave souza, talk11:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This section is more than a little absurd. FEMA rescue crews weren't activated a) because they weren't needed and b) because other entities had the primary responsibility and didn't ask for additional support. Leaving that out is particularly misleading. Buffs (talk) 19:33, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And now I have more questions. To start, if search teams have been out since the 4th, then it would be exceptional to state that a rescue crew was not activated because they were not needed. If you have a source for this, please post it. I have doubts about all of those being on-scene within hours. (Technically, what definition of within hours are we using anyways?) At a glance, we do both discuss and have a source in the article for the Coast Guard, but nothing else for the fourth in the Search and rescue section. (Should we add all groups that were confirmed there by the end of the day on the 4th?) The CBS News source says that volunteers were being turned away starting Sunday (7th) and doesn't state the reason why, while the NYT source lists those present on Monday (8th). (Also, I didn't bring up CNN and don't need to as EXCEPTIONAL applies to users rather than a news organization.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Buffs, I am struggling to interact with you given your comments in the sub-section below. To be brief, your CNN link isn't from the same day, so it isn't clear if it was within hours. NPR is fine for at least the numbers. Repeating that help started to be turned away from the 7th onward. Exceptional refers to the claim that they were not needed despite active rescues attempts that weekend. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main topic of the section is that call centre staff were laid off and residents could not phone for assistance. Needs more about the issue "that Noem's insistence on approving expenses over $100,000" had caused delay. There have been complaints about delays in other search-and-rescue teams being deployed, so the whole problem should be covered. . . dave souza, talk11:02, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's just as loaded of a statement. They couldn't call for FINANCIAL assistance and get help with forms for FEMA aid. That's completely different than they couldn't call for EMERGENCY assistance. Buffs (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is absurd is that this sort encyclopedic information is buried at the bottom of the article, after, among other things, multiple paragraphs about Walmart and others making the same kinds of routine corporate donations they make after every disaster, and that ten years from now no one will care about. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But when DEI is a goal, by definition, the aim is to promote the fair treatment and full participation of all people. Unfortunately, the term "DEI" has gained traction as an ethnic slur towards minority groups in the United States.. . dave souza, talk10:53, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that useful link, which makes the point that "the situation has gained national traction", and raises a puzzle. At #FEMA section, you said FEMA rescue crews weren't activated a) because they weren't needed and b) because other entities had the primary responsibility and didn't ask for additional support. Yet the complaint raised by Austin Firefighters Association alleges that Chief Baker's decisions "to not deploy swift water rescue teams when requested by Texas Task Force 1 to do so, over 24 hours before the July 4th floodwaters in Kerrville began to rise", resulted "in the likely loss of life". Rather contradictory. And, if Texas Task Force 1 was requesting assets when "No one expected it", why didn't they prepare for evacuation of low lying areas? . . . dave souza, talk10:51, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating so much to the point that it's not useful to continue a discussion when you aren't being honest with the timeline/mixing quotes within context. Buffs (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saying editors aren't being honest is not acceptable, you will of course accept that, to me, this was a puzzling discrepancy. Fortunately, it was explained by a July 2 statement by the Texas Division of Emergency Management that "According to the National Weather Service, heavy rainfall with the potential to cause flash flooding is anticipated across West Texas and the Hill Country beginning tonight and is expected to last a few days. Texans are encouraged to monitor local forecasts and avoid driving or walking into flooded areas." So that point is resolved. . . dave souza, talk10:27, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drdpw: I've reverted your removal of the July 12 outlook because your revert reason wasn't understandable (or easy to read, for that matter). I don't see how active flash flooding over the same area isn't relevant; this also doesn't belong in the "aftermath" section since it's not a direct aftereffect of the flooding. EF513:53, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll add that FFEs have already been issued this morning as well as >19 flash flood warnings, so these are relevant to the article and should be included. EF513:54, 13 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article talks about the deaths, missing people, and the search and rescue mission a ton, but it is short on details on damaged infrastructure. The infobox mentions a damaged footbridge, and it isn't until the aftermath that the article even says that any houses were damaged or destroyed. The problem is that I can't really find that information right now. I saw something on Realtor.com that talks about 38,000 homes being in the flood plain, but that's not exactly a reliable source for actually damaged houses. So if anyone could find that, I'd appreciate it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoguert: this [22] is an example of primary sourced trivia that needs to be trimmed from the article. Tennessee sent three cadaver dogs to help in the search. So what? Geogene (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel like it needs to stay as Tennessee contributed to the search and rescue/recovery operations by bringing in more cadaver dogs to help locate more bodies Hoguert (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just about three dog handlers. If that's your issue with the inclusion of Tennessee, then instead of deleting the entire section, why not just remove that part and reword it Hoguert (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And I feel like every state who has contributed to the floods needs to be mentioned, we shouldn't start excluding some just because its "trivia". Hoguert (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you are wrong, because there is no reason this article should be a Catalogue of Ships for every SAR team that was deployed there. There is already too much text devoted to that aspect of the disaster. Perhaps you'd like to spin that off into a separate article? Geogene (talk) 01:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring isn't justified by any policy. See WP:BRIE, but place it in the context of edit warring instead of incivility. — EF502:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just list the states possibly even in a footnote to "Multiple groups from at least 12 other U.S. states and agencies, as well as from Mexico, joined the search and rescue" unless there is something particularly notable about the aid. Erp (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As of July 19, multiple Texas newspapers and CNN say the current death toll is 135 people. But the page says “145+”!in multiple places.
I am only guessing, but perhaps the extras came from someone adding the deaths per county, but some people were listed under multiple counties. Ric (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a drowning death occurred in Uvalde County resulting from a July 16 incident along the Frio River in Uvalde County. But it happened far away from the Guadeloupe River flooding of July 4. As no source connects death 'X' with flood event 'Y', we cannot make that connection. Drdpw (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have a bit of a different opinion on this one. My argument is that we exclude if we are not covering the July 16th flooding and include if we are. The one article makes it clear that the death was due to floods. But, if we are not covering the floods from the 16th, then there is no reason to include. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I do feel like it should extend from July 12 to July 16, there was a moderate risk on the 14th to 15th for this region, and a slight on the 16th, and even then it still resulted in flooding, so I do think we should extend it. Hoguert (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be our making up our own parameters for a flooding event clearly over, and in the aftermath phase by then according to all reliable sources. The only post-July 4 flooding included in this article should be flooding connected by reliable sources with July 4 Guadalupe River deluge. Drdpw (talk) 02:26, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Buffs: regarding this diff [23], the source does not say that APRA funds "were intended for relief of actions taken to mitigate the Covid-19 Pandemic", that's your personal opinion. What it actually says is "In 2021, Kerr County was awarded a $10.2 million windfall from the American Rescue Plan Act, or ARPA, which Congress passed that same year to support local governments impacted by the pandemic. Cities and counties were given flexibility to use the money on a variety of expenses, including those related to storm-related infrastructure." [24]. The next sentence you added ("It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for upgrades to their flood warning system.") is supported but is incomplete; the source makes it clear that the extreme conservatism of county residents was a factor and that many residents did not want the funds to be used for anything at all: "We don't want to be bought by the federal government, thank you very much,” another resident told commissioners. "We'd like the federal government to stay out of Kerr County and their money." Why did you choose to be so selective about which of these facts to include? Geogene (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, unsure about the updates by @Buffs on that section but it does read as personal opinion and research. I included the text in the Dubious - Discuss template as when I reread the cited article it does not appear to include the text that @Buffs included. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently out of the country, so expect further delayed replies. I've removed the dubious tag as nothing here has been alleged to be dubious "The next sentence you added...is supported". We should attempt to discuss first. If an impasse is reached, we can re-label it.
For the rest of the remarks...
the source makes it clear that the extreme conservatism No portion of this mentions "extreme conservatism". That is indeed WP:OR/WP:SYNTH.
many residents did not want the funds to be used for anything at all It is a reasonable and fiscally conservative (not "extreme") response to say that they didn't want funds with so many strings attached.
Why did you choose to be so selective about which of these facts to include I was not "selective". I summarized. Ultimately the county accepted it and utilized the funds for the things the bill was stated as intended for. While there were not restrictions and they could have used it for a flood warning system, continuity of government during the pandemic was also a priority and the stated aim of the bill. Saying/implying they spent this $10M on the wrong thing is WP:SYNTH. This only works with the benefit of hindsight. Especially when you consider this was a 1000 year flood.
At some point, we are going to lose detail. Does it really matter whether some residents wanted/didn't want it? This is an accurate summary of events.
when I reread the cited article it does not appear to include the text Please re-read it.
At some point, we are going to lose detail. Can you clarify this statement? I don't exactly get what you are saying. (Lose detail as in an issue with sources, an issue with condensing, an issue with something else?) --Super Goku V (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reasonable and fiscally conservative (not "extreme") response to say that they didn't want funds with so many strings attached. That's your opinion, it's not in the source, so it's OR.
I was not "selective". I summarized. What you added is not a summary, because the source is criticizing inaction on flood warning systems, you only excused the inaction (one isolated statement from the source that suggested perhaps they didn't know they could spend the money on a flood warning system) without presenting any of the criticism that made up the majority of the source text.
Ultimately the county accepted it and utilized the funds for the things the bill was stated as intended for. The source doesn't state what, if anything, the funds were "intended" for. You are again defending the officials that the source is criticizing. That is OR. Ironic that you accuse others of OR at the same time, this is testing my patience.
While there were not restrictions and they could have used it for a flood warning system, continuity of government during the pandemic was also a priority and the stated aim of the bill. Actually the source says that they used the funds to upgrade their police radios, which has nothing to do with the COVID pandemic, either.
Saying/implying they spent this $10M on the wrong thing is WP:SYNTH. No it isn't because that's what the source is about.
In summary, if we are going to use a source that's titled, Did fiscal conservatism block plans for a new flood warning system in Kerr County?, then the content sourced to that should include concerns that maybe conservatism blocked the flood warning system, and excluding that seems POV to me. Geogene (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lose detail By definition, when you summarize, you lose detail. See WP:SUMMARY
That's your opinion, it's not in the source, so it's OR No, that's verbatim from the source. In fact, the word "extreme" doesn't appear once in the article. You even quoted the phrase from the article "fiscal conservatism" later on in your post. Did fiscal conservatism block plans... To claim otherwise is gaslighting
the source is criticizing inaction on flood warning systems No, the article questions inaction on flood warning systems. It quotes several residents' and politicians' opinions. It would be appropriate to include that question if the body of articles out there concurred with that question. As it is, it does not represent the sources and its inclusion is WP:UNDUE. Your assumption is that they got money and it should have been spent on a warning system. This was a 500 or 1000-year flood event and you're pretending that people said "eh, I'd rather have X more than this." Politics is ALWAYS about prioritizing some things for spending over others. Immediate needs often trump long-term desires. This criticism can pretty much only be leveled with the benefit of hindsight. They spent the bulk of the $10.2M on a badly needed radio system upgrade to communicate with first responders. If they'd spent it on a flood system, perhaps fewer rescues would have been necessary, but more people could have died because rescuers couldn't coordinate efforts.
The source doesn't state what, if anything, the funds were "intended" for That's just disingenuous. The bill itself (which you mention by name) references it:
From Sec 9901: A state, territory, or tribal government shall use the funds to cover costs incurred by December 31, 2024, to
respond to the COVID-19 emergency or its negative economic impacts, including assistance to households, small businesses, and nonprofits or aid to impacted industries such as
tourism, travel, and hospitality;
provide premium pay to essential workers or provide grants to employers of essential workers during the COVID-19 emergency;
provide government services to the extent of the reduction in revenue of such state, territory, or tribal government due to the COVID-19 emergency; or
make necessary investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure.
Communication systems for emergencies are at the backbone of broadband infrastructure from a government services perspective and clearly qualify. I don't dispute that, arguably, "water" would also include a flood warning system. In hindsight, this was a blanket grant from the feds for just about anything.
I'm struggling to believe you've read itWP:AGF. Just because I don't come to the same conclusions you do doesn't mean I haven't read it.
We've already stated "the lack of a warning system was due to its high cost and claimed that residents were resistant to the idea for that reason". Restating it is redundant and violates WP:UNDUE.
I've explained this summary repeatedly and in excruciating detail that should not be necessary At this point, no further responses are going to move you off of your repeated conclusions that "extreme conservatism" is to blame. As WP:AGF, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYNTH and other policies/rationales are not enough to dissuade you from this hyperpartisan standpoint, I feel further discussion is pointless. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the bill (a primary source) to try to wikilawyer out a secondary source is classic Original Research. It's also hard to see why a flood warning system would not be an intended use for the funds, when the funds were actually used for police radios and a new walking trail. Geogene (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you are moving the goalposts. You said "The source doesn't state what, if anything, the funds were 'intended' for". I point out that the very document referenced indeed states exactly what the funds are intended for. That is refuting your claim, not WP:OR. Likewise, we can use a primary source (see WP:NOR)
But back to the statement at hand "It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for upgrades to their flood warning system." This is an accurate summary a portion of the article which states "While much has been made of the ARPA spending, it’s not clear if residents or the commissioners understood at the time they could have applied the funds to a warning system." It is notWP:OR in any sense of the word. Buffs (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't use your interpretation of primary sources to interpret secondary ones, that has always been OR. No goalposts are being moved. As for This is an accurate summary a portion of the article which states Yes, a portion of. The portion with the POV that you're cherrypicking here. You're making excuses for public officials by suggesting maybe they didn't know what they could use the funds, while not including any of the criticism that makes up the bulk of that source. Geogene (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And you are insinuating that the funds were improperly used with the complete benefit of hindsight. For literally every nonnatural death, there are many "would've/could've/should've"s. You've made that implication. Failing to point out what the funds were used for (which, at the time was likely just as justifiable, if not moreso) and what officials were aware they could have used the funds for is appropriate to include. To omit it is biased and fails WP:UNDUE and WP:SUMMARY. Buffs (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence under "Effectiveness of evacuation alerts" needs a verb. Change "By then, the river already rising rapidly." to "By then, the river was already rising rapidly." 199.192.151.199 (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.
Version A[25], While additional funding was made available for the county through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it was not used for flood warning and monitoring systems. It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for upgrades to their flood warning system. The area is very conservative politically, and many residents were opposed to using the funds for anything at all. Source.
Version B[26] While additional funding was made available for the county through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it was not used for flood warning and monitoring systems. At the time, some residents were opposed to using the funds for anything as they opposed the requirements attached to federal funds. It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for such upgrades.Source
Questions in dispute are
1) Should this mention political conservatism?
2) Should it include It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for upgrades to their flood warning system.
3) Is "some residents" or "many residents" more accurate.
Version A is best, Version B is POV and contains original research. It should mention conservatism, because that's the main thesis of the source. It should not include It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for upgrades to their flood warning system. because that's a cherry picked aside from the source's main thesis, and seems to be making excuses, considering that the source also states the money was ultimately used on new police radios and walking trails. "Many residents" is more accurate than "some residents", given that 42% of them were opposed. The supposed requirements attached to federal funds may be a conspiracy theory that some residents believed in, but the source doesn't say these actually existed, a big problem with Version B is that it confidently asserts these restrictions are real in Wikivoice. Geogene (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Close RfC This is a particularly malformed RfC and it should be closed. There are many more options than the ones presented, such as removing these sentences altogether from a single source which doesn't represent the body of information on the subject. The entire tenor of these statements is to place blame on conservatives for the loss of life/property from the flood because they misallocated resources. This can only be concluded with the benefit of hindsight. This is WP:SYNTHESIS and is prohibited. I've attempted to work with Geogene to come up with a compromise. That effort has resulted in accusations of malfeasance and threats and now bureaucratic efforts to stymie/blunt discussion. No attempt has been made to remove WP:WEASEL words (specifically "many"). The idea that 42% of the residents felt this way is an absurd conclusion to draw from a public survey (not a random sampling) of 180 people in a county of 54000. This represents a fundamental misunderstanding in the methods of statistical analysis and cannot support the vague term "many". If you have to put something down for my !vote based on these horrible options Version B is the best of the two, but that shouldn't be confused with support for any of the phrasing, just the least of 2 bad options. Buffs (talk) 20:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: The entire tenor of these statements is to place blame on conservatives for the loss of life/property from the flood because they misallocated resources. That's what the source is doing. We are supposed to be here to summarize reliable sources. Geogene (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are asking a question "Did fiscal conservatism block plans for a new flood warning system in Kerr County?" Fiscal conservatism is a general viewpoint. Conservatives are individuals. The article points out both for and against this viewpoint, not just one way. Buffs (talk) 21:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current wording or Version B There are some serious problems with version A. The source article is giving a history of the county's conversations and decisions around updating the alert system and residents hesitancy to accept ARPA funds - which the county ultimately accepted. For one, the only real direct link between conservativism and the floodng/alert system is WP:HEADLINE, and even then it refers to it as 'fiscal conservatism'. The article itself does not make a direct link when it comes to the flood system and conservatism, only ARPA - which again, they accepted, they just spent it on other things. If this information belongs anywhere, it would be on a page about ARPA funding but - given they took the funding - is doubtful. Additionally, even if this was in an ARPA article, I wholly disagree with using the papers mention of an internal poll (43%, n=180) to support "many residents". Internal polls and the methods they use to gauge opinions can be very different than polls used to make generalized findings about a population. At most it could be used to say "some residents". And obviously, public sentiments and fears about strings attached weren't so against it that they didn't receive the funding. PositivelyUncertain (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note:At present, the paragraph in question reads: While additional funding was made available for the county through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, it was not used for flood warning and monitoring systems. At the time, several residents voiced their opposition to using the funds, giving a variety of reasons, including fear that the money would come with undesirable federal government mandates attached. It is unclear whether county officials were aware they could have used the funding for such upgrades. Drdpw (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(summoned by bot) Version A better reflects the source to my mind. I'll grant that Version B sounds more neutral, and I preferred it until I read the source, but the source does seem to pick a side here. AndreasJN46620:15, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As edit summary was cut off, here is the notes for this failed verification tag. The article sentence, "The 2021 IPCC report on The Physical Science Basis stated that human-induced climate change was increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme heavy rainfall events and flash floods, with the rarer extreme events becoming more frequent is cited by a 2013 source, a 2009 source, and a post-flood 2025 source. The IPCC Sixth Assessment Report released in 2021, meaning the only source able to verify that sentences claim is the post-flood 2025 source. The post-flood 2025 source cites only three sentences for the IPCC report in 2021: "Regional changes in annual wettest-day precipitation increases with every increment of global warming. These increases are anticipated across nearly all continental regions." & "In fact, scientists have high confidence that extreme precipitation events will increase globally as a result of climate change." The term "human-induced climate change" is unverifiable, as the pre-IPCC report sources are obviously unable to verify the IPCC report's claim. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)00:41, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Since it involved a CTOPIC, I did not want to remove the terms "human-induced" without some level of discussion/other editor comments. The exact failed verification info is the exact terms "human-induced". Removing that automatically fixes the issue. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)01:27, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AR6 report was, of course, published in 2021, having rushed using a template generator, didn't notice it added spurious dates. Thanks for pointing out my error. AR6 is a definitive statement of mainstream views, and is cited by more than one reference we use as being relevant to the Texas event. The Chapter 11 Executive summary states "It is an established fact that human-induced greenhouse gas emissions have led to an increased frequency and/or intensity of some weather and climate extremes since pre-industrial time, in particular for temperature extremes. Evidence of observed changes in extremes and their attribution to human influence (including greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions and land-use changes) has strengthened since AR5", Chapter 12, 12.4.6.2 Wet and Dry has "Heavy precipitation and pluvial flood: Section 11.4 assessed high confidence in observed increases in extreme precipitation events (including hourly totals) in Central and Eastern North America...." so it's verifiable that AR6 says this. . . . dave souza, talk14:45, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] The wording of our summary can of course be improved, there was a long discussion before the global warming was merged into climate change article and I thought it was worthwhile being explicit. . dave souza, talk15:08, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the explanation. After that, I am actually inclined to boldly remove the term "human-induced" from the section; which I will do after posting this reply. What we have here is a case of the primary source (IPCC 2021 report) which mentioned climate change is human influenced. The reliable secondary source only mentions the term "climate change" without mentioning the human influenced aspect. Part of WP:DUE warns us that the "juxtaposition of statements", which is what this is (i.e. combining two sources together), can maybe lead to problems. Obviously, climate change is a contentious topic. If the secondary reliable analysis of the IPCC 2021 report does not mention "human" involvement, then it probably is not that important to mention it in this specific article. The same thought and same statement can be accomplished in the article by just mentioning "climate change", without the need for editors to juxtaposition statements from a primary source and secondary analysis source. So, I shall go ahead and boldly remove the term "human-induced" from the sentence, and I will also remove the failed verification template. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page)19:05, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, that's a good resolution and in context of the quotes from Dessler and Francis covers the #Climate change link reasonably well. . . . dave souza, talk20:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone said when the current #Analysis, criticism, and misinformation section was set up, it's a rather daft heading to include mainstream views under. Can we change it to Analysis and criticism and accept that the latter can cover misinformation? . . . dave souza, talk21:09, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Trump commented to reporters that the floods were "a terrible thing So he said a true sentence. That is extraordinary but not really needed in this article.
Trump said, "I would think not. This was the thing that happened in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it. Very talented people in there and they didn't see it." Why is his rambling relevant here?
The current Kerr County judge, Rob Kelly, stated during the floods that "no one knew this kind of flood was coming" Also not relevant. Why would a judge be quoted here unless it is part of a trial?
The narrative "nobody could have seen this" is entirely supported by quotes from people who should not be expected to know about such things. And one of them is well-known to be a pathological liar. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:29, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are good points, the Kidd / Kelly / Trump narrative is politically significant, but needs context, a lot of which is covered in cited source 15 : "Federal forecast concerns surface in Texas' deadly flooding debate". Judge Rob Kelly is Kerr county’s most senior elected official, both Kerr County Sheriff Larry Leitha and William “Dub” Thomas, the county’s emergency management director, were asleep when the flooding began pouring into homes and Camp Mystic, which resulted in more than 100 people killed. Kerr County Judge Rob Kelly was out of town the day of the flooding. Late to spring into action, local leaders then ignored much of the disaster plan they had drafted in 2020 .... Kelly, Kerr county’s most senior elected official, seemed to shirk responsibility when he said on Friday: “We didn’t know this flood was coming. Rest assured, no one knew this kind of flood was coming. We have floods all the time. This is the most dangerous river valley in the United States.”[30][31] This was translated into Texan by a RV dweller: “He said: ‘We didn’t know nothing.’ Everybody caught that”.[32] . . . Just needs some work and more context. . dave souza, talk17:00, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a complex but important tale, and ideally we should add a bit of context before adding the quotes back, then develop it further. . . dave souza, talk17:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first DJT quote about the floods being "a terrible thing", though general and superficial, should probably be included in that section somewhere. Also, was that judge speaking on behalf of a group of community officials? Was he quoted at a joint news conference of some sort? Drdpw (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kerr County Judge, Rob Kelly,[33] has claimed officials “didn’t know this flood was coming." .. "This is the most dangerous river valley in the United States, and we deal with floods on a regular basis – when it rains, we get water," Kelly said to reporters Friday. "We had no reason to believe this was going to be anything like what has happened here, none whatsoever." Kerrville City Manager Dalton Rice reiterated that apparent lack of awareness, telling the media Friday: “This rain event sat on top of that and dumped more rain than what was forecasted.”[34] The [emergency management] plan puts the the county judge and the mayor in charge of offering general guidance to disaster response.[35] I gather that Kerr County, Texas, is a community of about 54,000. Though I live fairly near Houston, this is all a bit beyond me. . . dave souza, talk18:35, 11 August 2025 (UTC) updated 18:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that criticisms of Trump should be included with nothing in his defense (even his own statements) is absurd in the extreme. Regardless how you feel about him, doing so fails neutrality. It is politically significant (as noted by souza) and should not be omitted. I think you should self revert, Geogene. Should consensus reflect otherwise, I will be happy to revert. #detente
Lastly, just because an area is flood prone doesn't mean they are prepared or expecting a 1000-year event even when flood warnings/emergencies are announced. Areas that would normally be considered "high ground" were unexpectedly underwater. It is incorrect to paraphrase "no one expected this" as "no one expected a flood". The fact is that no one expected a flood of this magnitude. Flooding was indeed an expectation within this area. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes from Trump are just him saying nonsense and lying, of course the meteorologists knew that something was coming and sent out the warnings that the page already discussed. He's just saying that so nobody connects anything to his randomly firing large numbers of government employees.
I don't agree about removing the quote from Kelly, though, he's clear that he's saying that they didn't know this particular flood was going to be as bad and that addresses some of the questions about why they had gone so long without really doing anything for flood preparedness/warning. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about what Kelly's response says; he's expertly deflecting questions about preparedness by setting an unrealistic expectation that forecasts should have shown the exact place and amount of rainfall to give the county time to prepare. The quotes from Trump are more than just him saying nonsense, they framed the administration's narrative. Tufekci, Zeynep (9 July 2025). "As the Texas Floodwaters Rose, One Indispensable Voice Was Silent". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 10 July 2025. Retrieved 15 July 2025. – written by a professor of sociology and public affairs at Princeton University, so an expert opinion on this aspect – writes administration and local officials in Texas alternated between blaming the Weather Service and defending it. Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, credited the service with issuing early warnings, but President Trump went with: “Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it. Very talented people in there and they didn’t see it.” The head of the Texas Division of Emergency Management blamed the N.W.S., saying its forecasts “did not predict the amount of rain that we saw.” ... The problem is that complex systems are only as strong as their weakest point. The N.W.S. was still managing to put out good forecasts. But forecasts don’t move people. Credible, timely warnings that they hear and believe do. Resilience in critical infrastructure necessarily requires planning as well as painfully, slowly acquired knowledge, all of which can easily be made to look like waste and extravagance during regular times. .... Some residents who did get cellphone alerts reported dismissing them. Have you ever ignored an alarm on your phone for what turned out to be just rain? In Flash Flood Alley, notification fatigue is almost bound to set in at some point. This is a well-known problem in disaster management, and exactly where someone like Paul Yura could have played a crucial role. Warning coordinators are senior meteorologists with extensive experience assessing the local weather, including identifying when things quickly take a turn for the worse. They would have direct lines to emergency-management teams and local officials, local television and radio stations, civic institutions and leaders, all of whom could rally to make sure residents were all properly warned. I’ve heard a lot of smart people say that given how many hundreds of kids were sleeping in summer camp bunks right by the river, and how incredibly fast the floodwaters rose, nothing could really have been done. But at Camp Mystic, where at least 27 campers and counselors were washed away, the kids whose cabins were on just slightly higher ground all survived. Only those in the lower cabins were lost. Those lower cabins were less than a quarter of a mile away from the higher cabins. Every moment would have counted. . . . dave souza, talk06:38, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're straying pretty far away from the subject of this thread. The question is whether to include quotes from Trump and other officials. Regardless of their accuracy, the quotes were said and were notable and verifiable. |The truth of the associated statement is irrelevant.
@ Buffs, where in WP:V do you get "The truth of the associated statement is irrelevant"? The relevant policy is WP:Weight, untrue statemens are fringe views, to be show in context of expert opinion. The linked video snippet at "You can spend millions or more on preparing for something that never happens" is offtopic and irrelevant, WP:TALK requires constructive discussion, not time-wasting. . dave souza, talk07:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
where in WP:V do you get "The truth of the associated statement is irrelevant"? Here's a whole essay on the topic: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
Trump said it. That is true. Wikipedia shouldn't be in the business of assigning a "true" or "false" label to it. Likewise, it's hardly a fringe statement unless you take it out of context. He was asked about the forecast. Just 12 hours prior, they knew there was going to be rain and possible flooding. They didn't know how much flooding and that was what Trump was addressing.
"You can spend millions or more..." is offtopic and irrelevant It most certainly is not. One of the reasons Trump cut NWS officials was money. Criticism of flood warning systems was centered around fund allocation. It's most certainly relevant. Buffs (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You just replied to a post explaining why it would be good to include the Trump quote, so I’m not sure why you think it didn’t have anything to do with the Trump quote.
Dave, I hadn’t seen that Trump was quoted contradicting his own spokesperson, in that case, as long as we include her telling the truth, I’m fine with including his quote, to get both sides. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Souza indicated a lot of information that had nothing to do with that/was too detailed and that's what I was responding to. Your insistence on proving Trump "wrong" at. every turn is not conducive to this discussion. Buffs (talk) 21:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pretending that I'm insisting on anything here and read what I actually wrote, for example, the part where I pointed out that the post you replied to was literally about why including the quote from Trump was a good idea, which contradicts your claim. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ MilesVorkosigan, fully agree that Trump's quote should be included and, of course, shown in the context of mainstream expert opinion @ Buffs, fair point that there's a lot of detail, maybe a subheading or moving it to a new section would help? . . dave souza, talk08:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[re: MilesVorkosigan] The article makes other insightful points, including the problem of repeated false alarms resulting in the important ones being ignored, which show why officials didn't want to cry wolf. The issue about the statement is supported by van Waasbergen, Christina (11 July 2025). "Trump defends flood response during Texas visit". Courthouse News Service. Retrieved 12 August 2025. – [a White House spokesperson said] "While the Trump Administration is focused on helping Texas recover from this tragedy, Courthouse News is desperately grasping at straws to try and blame President Trump for a historic natural disaster. All of the experts have already debunked this ridiculous narrative — the National Weather Service was well staffed and did their job to provide warnings to those impacted," spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in an email. . . . dave souza, talk22:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was it that the local officials didn't want to cry wolf, or that they wanted (somewhat understandably) to not have to think about/spend money on severe flooding?
Parts of the camp were indeed in the 'Regulatory Floodway', which is an area to be kept clear so that floodwater can drain away, but they were old and got a FEMA exemption so that was OK in Texas. A lot of RV and caravan (trailer) and tent campsites were in the floodplain and floodway because money, the expectation that climate change is a hoax so floods would never go higher, or just forgetfulness, and FEMA rules didn't apply, up to local regulations if any. A "1,000 year flood"just means an area on a map of main watercourses (not creeks) assessed manly on old records as low enough to have that 1% risk to insured buildings, of my recollection is correct. . . dave souza, talk23:28, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, a thousand year flood is a 0.1% chance in any given year at the specific location, and as there are many locations the US can have several thousand year floods in the same year. I think there were quite a few in July this year. . dave souza, talk 08:16, 13 August 2025 (UTC) oops, Axios article below says 1,000-year flood has a 0.01% chance. Failed my O-level arithmetic, so likely my mistake. . . dave souza, talk08:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Axios author failed their arithmetic worse. 0.1% is correct since 0.1% is one thousandth. 0.01% would be the likelihood of a ten-thousand year event. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C'mon now. Texans allegedly are too stubborn to think ahead? That's just insulting and unnecessary.
Was it that the local officials didn't want to cry wolf, or that they wanted (somewhat understandably) to not have to think about/spend money on severe flooding? Along the same lines, that's a false dichotomy. Perhaps just wisely spending limited resources on things that are known to have a positive effect is a better short term option than spending it all on a system that could sit idle for years, decades, or even possibly even centuries. Buffs (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not even remotely a false dichotomy. Please stop reflexively disagreeing with anything anyone else says.
Heck, your third sentence is in agreement with the thought that they just didn't want to spend the money on this. Please stop assuming that everything I say is opposite from you. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 23:14, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was offering an additional option because I wasn't sure that the one that was suggested was correct. Please don't use terms you don't understand, and stop reflexively disagreeing with me. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrell, Jesse (Jul 8, 2025). "How did we get a dozen '1,000-year floods' in 3 days?". AccuWeather. Retrieved Aug 12, 2025. gives clarification, which needs to be explained in the #Meteorological synopsis and background section, and briefly outlined at the outset of #Accuracy and communication of forecasts. See also "Flood Maps". FEMA.gov. January 22, 2024. Archived from the original on July 1, 2021. Retrieved July 28, 2025. Flood maps show how likely it is for an area to flood. Any place with a 1% chance or higher chance of experiencing a flood each year is considered to have a high risk. Those areas have at least a one-in-four chance of flooding during a 30-year mortgage. Although that reference predates this particular event, I think it's relevant and shouldn't be excluded. . . dave souza, talk05:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, that’s saying that we thought this was more of a 1 in a 100 flood, but that is turned out to be more common?
No, that's not what the article is saying at all. A 1% chance was describing a 100 year event and attempting to put it into common parlance. These were indeed 1000-year floods or more. "Both are considered to be at least '1,000-year flood' events". No, they aren't "more common" now. They are just better defined and (clearly) misunderstood as a statistic. If you have 1000 points of measurement nationwide (and the US has FAR more than that), Each year 1 (on average) will have a 1000 year event. That doesn't mean 4 won't happen in a year (nor does such an instance indicate an "increase"), but it does mean that we'll probably have several years where we won't have any that will offset them. Buffs (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a *terrible* headline. I don't see that the AccuWeather source is really relevant at all. I assumed that they were trying to make a point about repeated flooding in the area in question, instead they're just explaining basic statistics.
On the FEMA map, if I'm reading it right (and yes, this is OR, I'm not arguing to put this in the article) it shows that parts of the camp were in the 'Regulatory Floodway' which seems to suggest that this didn't at all need to be a 1000nd year flood. Do we actually have a source claiming that it was? I just see someone making the claim with no attribution, I don't see any of the officials (or scientists) making the claim. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, I see that this morning sometime, someone replaced a link to an article in Forbes with a link to something called "Carrier Management" who quote another group called "Cotality" talking about insurance losses and claiming that it was a thousand-year flood. They did not give a clear reason for why they said that. I suggest we'd want to have a scientist as a source for this, or at least someone who references science, not an insurance industry group. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 22:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we'd want to have a scientist as a source for this vs Good thing that nobody you're replying to said even a single thing about needing a scientist.... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Buffs (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those are definitely two things I’ve said? Do you have any idea why you posted them?
There is a problem with having an insurance group claiming it was a 1,000 year flood. It would be better to instead have a source with an expert saying that this flood was a 1,000 year flood. A scientist would be such an expert. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V: You're right! But first note that .. In the 1960's, the United States government decided to use the 1-percent annual exceedance probability (AEP) flood as the basis for the National Flood Insurance Program. The 1-percent AEP flood was thought to be a fair balance between protecting the public and overly stringent regulation. Because the 1-percent AEP flood has a 1 in 100 chance of being equaled or exceeded in any 1 year, and it has an average recurrence interval of 100 years, it often is referred to as the "100-year flood". ... use of such terms as the "100-year flood" can confuse or unintentionally mislead those unfamiliar with flood science. Because of the potential confusion, the U.S. Geological Survey, along with other agencies, is encouraging the use of the annual exceedance probability (AEP) terminology instead of the recurrence interval terminology. For example, one would discuss the "1-percent AEP flood" as opposed to the "100-year flood."[36] There's a lot more in that explanation, if an expert can help by explaining it for us, that will be great. . . dave souza, talk19:24, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need an expert to explain it, I'm more interested in seeing an expert confirm whether it really was a 1 in a 100, 1 in 500, or 1 in 1000 flood.
Well, yes, 'it was a 100 year flood' and 'it was a 1000 year flood' are, in fact, mutually exclusive. They mean different things.
And given that several of the sources you linked there don't even refer to this specific flood, they don't support your claim. We'd need something from an actual scientist or meteorologist, not a talking head or politician. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, thank you for the source. :) This event was found to exceed the “1/1000 year” annual exceedance probability, or an event with a 0.1% probability over a given location each year. This is the line that sticks out to me the most out of anything in the article. I am trying to understand if exceeding here means rarer than "1 in 1000" or if I am misunderstanding a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article, you're interpreting that the same way I am.
Axios Explains Stringer, Megan (July 16, 2025). "Why 100-year floods can happen more often than once a century". Axios. Retrieved July 20, 2025. ... Trump administration officials called the July Fourth Guadalupe River flooding a "100-," "500-" or "1,000-year flood" during a Friday visit to Kerrville, prompting questions about the meaning of the term. The big picture: Such phrases shape how the public understands risk. But these events are not unprecedented — in fact, they can occur regularly. .. A 100-year flood is one that has a 1% chance of occurring in any year. It can happen more than once a century, and it's not related to the death toll of a flood, Texas state climatologist John Nielsen-Gammon tells Axios. .. A 1,000-year flood has a .01% chance. The designation is determined by how often, historically, a river is expected to reach a certain height. It's different for each river basin. .. Really you should expect to see several of these in any given year just because there are lots of places, .. The odds of flooding the following year aren't affected by whether or not it just flooded." .. Also, Skinner, Anna (July 25, 2025). "Map shows where 100-year floods have hit across the US over past year". Newsweek. Retrieved July 30, 2025. The United States Geological Service (USGS) describes the term "100-year flood" as an attempt "to simplify the definition of a flood that statistically has a 1-percent chance of occurring in any given year." Unfortunately, that simplification is rather misleading, which is why https://www.fema.gov/flood-maps doesn't use it ... dave souza, talk22:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply] As noted here: Porter, Jeremy (July 16, 2025). "FEMA's flood maps often miss dangerous flash flood risks, leaving homeowners unprepared". The Conversation. Retrieved July 20, 2025. It's taken me a while to begin to understand all this! . . dave souza, talk22:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 06:23, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
Done – Thank you for pointing out this grammatical error. Drdpw (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
