# Talk:Misinformation about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

I think an 'Origin and spread' section is important to add. A lot of RS seem to be emphasizing the scale of the misinformation, rapid online spread, and how unprecedented it is. [1] [2] [3] Several of these specifically discuss social media sites, particularly Twitter/X in being the origin of the rumors and uniquely enabling them to spread on a widespread scale. Cowlan (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The fact that society has come to the point that this article had to be made is sad. Le Hurricane (talk) 00:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
The fact that Wikipedia is so politically biased makes me sad.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. They need to create a new word. Misinformation and disinformation are washed up. It happened and people were fired for it. Wikipedia do better! 68.114.244.24 (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

I have two questions about the scope of this article:

Is it exclusive to the United States?
What is being counted as a conspiracy theory? I added information about disinformation about a Cuban dam collapse but it doesn't necessarily accuse the Cuban government of anything (though according to the cited article it is related to mistrust in the Cuban government).
Thanks, ✶Quxyz✶ 20:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is just politically biased against conservatives and Republicans. Bjoh249 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bjoh249
This is irrelevant to the topical at hand
Wikipedia can only report on what reliable sources, as deemed by consensus, say.
✶Quxyz✶ 01:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it’s truth. This site is very biased. Which is why no real thinking person takes you seriously. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Unless you have a specific claim related to this article, do not post further. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Whatever, nobody takes Wikipedia seriously because of bias like yours. Bjoh249 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Contray to one conspiracy theory mentioned in the article, available reliable sources show the lack of lithium and other mineral resources in the area devasted by Hurricane Helene. The United States Geological Survey and North Carolina Geological Survey have published maps of mineral resources that include the area affected by Hurricane Helene. They show that area to be devoid of economically valuable lithium and other mineral resource. With links to digital files where they exist, they included:
Lemmon, R.E. and Dunn, D.E., 1973, Geologic map and mineral resources summary of the Bat Cave quadrangle, North Carolina, and mineral resource summary. Geological Map Series, 202-NE, 1:24,000. North Carolina Geological Survey.
Robinson, G.R., Lesure, F.G., Marlow, J.I., Foley, N.K., and Clark, S.H., 2004. Bedrock geology and mineral resources of the Knoxville 1 degree X 2 degree quadrangle Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2004-1075, 1:250,000.
The United States Geological Survey, North Carolina Geological Survey, and others have also published papers and fact sheets which include maps of the Tin-Spodumene Belt / spodumene pegmatite district, which show where lithium deposits are found and limited to in North Carolina. With links to digital files where they exist, they included:
Horton, J.W.; Butler, J.R. The Kings Mountain belt and spodumene pegmatite district, Cherokee and York Counties, South Carolina, and Cleveland County, North Carolina. In Centennial Field Guide; Neathery, T.L., Ed.; Southeastern Section of the Geological Society of America: Boulder, CO, USA, 1986; Volume 6, pp. 239–244.
Kesler, T.L., 1942. The tin-spodumene belt of the Carolinas: A preliminary report. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 936-J, p. 245-269.
North Carolina Geological Survey, Lithium. Educational Fact Sheet. Paul H. (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

There are two ongoing discussions concerning this article. You can participate in them here:

Talk:Hurricane Helene#Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?
Talk:Hurricane Milton#Should the conspiracy theories have 1 or 2 sentences in the lead?
The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Take down the part about FEMA in the “misinformation” section. Kinda contradictory to have it in there when the section itself states that FEMA themselves confirmed it was true 72.92.153.149 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

A single case that took place about a month after the majority of the claims (and appears to have been motivated by the false claims) is not enough to move it from misinformation. ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
The whole article is BS. The whole article should be taken down. 2601:80:4582:C590:456A:D885:14CE:7294 (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2025 (UTC)
The article is a vital article. The misinformation is widely known and well sourced. Note, FEMA did produce false information in the aftermath of Hurricane Milton (proven during a Congressional hearing) in November 2024, where believe it or not, Marjorie Taylor Greene and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez both condemned FEMA. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:11, 14 September 2025 (UTC)