Talk:1970 Bhola cyclone

message: The title of this article may be wrong. Can anyone confirm that this disaster is most generally known as the 'Bhola cyclone'. I'm not finding many Google references to it under that name, and the cyclone + tidal wave affected a much larger area. In the meantime, I've moved to page to '1970 Bhola cyclone' to conform to the style of other natural disaster articles and because cyclones in the area of the Bay of Bengal occur nearly every year. -- Solipsist 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I think we should change the 500,000 deaths to 500,000+, since we do not know the exact number. HurricaneGeek {User talk:HurricaneGeek}  — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look we have the symbol ≥ in the infobox.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll 

message: Expand intro and more impact. Storm05 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Todo

message: I'm not going to be able to do all this myself (at least not right away), but this article needs to be restructured similarly to other tropical cyclone articles (see Cyclone Mala, Hurricane Isabel, Tropical Storm Bilis). It needs separate impact and storm history sections. --Coredesat 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyediting is best done by a fresh pair of eyes, I've had to trawl though a lot...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The sortable table seems slightly broken because the totals are included in the sorting.  Surely there is some way to avoid this so that the row of totals remains outside of the sort? — jdorje (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Other issues: (1) where do the numbers in the table come from? Those are arrived at statistically?  A source needs to be given and if it is statistical the columns should probably be reordered.  (2) What does "This reflected the elimination of the less healthy individual cyclones during the storm." mean? — jdorje (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The aftermath section needs a couple of paragraphs of overview. — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Any dollar amounts need to be converted into 2007 variants.  Often this should say like "$1 million ($10 million in 2006 USD)" or something.  If this seems extremely tedious or cluttering it is a sign that you have too many numbers being stuck in.  I think the 'international response' has way too many numbers (which would be better represented in a table).  You should also use " " to separate units from numbers (so that line breaks will not separate them), as in "$10 million". — jdorje (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the table, that's from the epidemiology report used extensively in that section. I'd much prefer to retain the sortability; it needs a few fixes still (I'm researching how to fix). Both issues will likely be resolved with a bit of hacking. The Int'l response needs a general copyedit from someone else and its easier for them if the raw numbers are present in article, they can see them that way. A table may be a possibility, but I'm not convinced that would make sense. Likewise, its probably easier for the copyeditor if the conversions aren't cluttering it up (its all 1970 USD). Oh and use Commonwealth English not American in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and the conversions in this article (and all the other WPTC articles) are staying for 2006 USD until such time as our primo source updates to give a 2007 figure that is not a forecast.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, that is not essential prior to editing; I'd rather not do it because the number of conversions in there is a lot and not exactly trivial labour. The copyediting will likely cull a lot of the raw numbers in any case; no objection to that. Adding in all the conversions now reduces the readability, which makes copyediting harder. Knowing that all the numbers are in the same unit (1970 USD) is all that really matters for that.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then all of the items stating "units unknown" should probably be deleted -- it makes the article somewhat difficult to read. --JD79 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Todo (part 3) 

message: Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria.
As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time.   My comments are as follows:
There has been a good deal of work put into the article.  Inline citations are generally very well put together (see a couple of issues below) and in most of the article there is clear prose and good grammar.
However as the assessor I will require a number of adjustments (most are minor but one or two will take a bit of work) as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted.   Please let me know directly (before the first 7 days) if you need that extra time.
I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template  after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.
# I think editors should look at WP:Lead section so that the lead can be reconstructed – BUT only after the other adjustments below are made.  I say this because the lead should be capable of standing alone whilst being a summary of the major points of the article. Currently the lead in this document neglects to mention some parts (for example international assistance) in any way.  In addition the article can afford and probably requires a longer lead simply because it is quite large and content is complex in many areas.
#The most obvious concern appears particularly in the area of international assistance – with the content providing a vast amount of (units unknown) references.  I have three specific reasons for my concern; (1) these appear sloppy for a potential GA article, (2) there are obvious cases where it is clear what the units are for example the sentence that says (The British government promised $2.5 million (units unknown) in aid and an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee raised about £1.5 million (units unknown) for disaster relief in East Pakistan.[29][35] ) is obviously talking about pounds sterling in the second reference, and others for example (By the end of November, the League of Red Cross Societies had collected $3.5 million to supply aid to the victims of the disaster.[29] ) where it appears that we are left to guess whether the editors knew that $ meant a specific unit: and (3) most of these inline citations relate to this reference (Halloran, Richard. "Pakistan Storm Relief a Vast Problem", New York Times, November 29, 1970.) which does not actually assist directly with verification unless one has the article to compare the figures.  I suggest a major clean up of these parts, and in particular the article should choose whether it wishes to nominate the type of currency (which is probably the most useful conclusion) or not – but not to, as is the current situation, sometimes indicate units unknown and at others leave readers to assume that $ means ? and £ means pounds.
#:The NYT article is archived, and citing it in the article would constitute a copyvio. The $ means 1970 USD; I can email you links to the articles in refs 21 and 29 if you need to see them.--Coredesat 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment – on hold  [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|35px]]

message: This article has not reached GA criteria in the time provided.  I do note the adjustments made by various editors towards that goal and I have returned in agreement on the legitimate comments left by editors in return of the above assessment.  I invite you to adjust the document to the standards required and re-nominate.  I also note (briefly) in the interests of transparency that user:Nilfanion has contacted me with regards his inability to pursue this article for some time, due to personal stress issues (which he has posted on his user page).  I respect that position and have returned to him in private however, with respect, I do not think it is wise to leave the GA assessment in abeyance until his return and have not done so.  I will be more than happy to continue with the assessment personally when the article reaches WP:GAC and therefore bump it up the list if renomination occurs in a reasonable amount of time.--VS talk 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA assessment – failed [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|35px]]

message: I fail to see why it would be premature; the addition has nothing to do with deaths, but instead that Sidr was a cyclone hitting a similar area with a similar track. (to clarify, the IP that made the original change is me; I sometimes forget to log in) IPchangesthe box 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been several cyclones that took that track, though only Sidr has an article. I don't see the need, particularly if Sidr causes less than 1% of this storm's death total, to include Sidr. Furthermore, the track wasn't that similar. It started a short distance east of India, only strengthened to Cat. 3 status, and had a north-northeast track for much of its duration. Sidr started near the Andoman Islands, and became one of many cyclones to strike Bangaldesh. I removed Sidr again, and replaced it with the List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones article, since that would be a more logical and useful Wikilink for comparing other related storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems pretty reasonable; the track was fairly similar AFTER the turn, however. 72.205.60.115 (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sidr 

message: Is there any good reason why these two sentences are included?
In Italy and Switzerland, many people lost interest in the disaster after the initial shock. News reports indicated that they perceived the disaster was far away and was someone else's responsibility.
It seems grossly POV to me. If the source indicates that this was the attitude taken by many og the people, it should definitely be reworded for clarification. bob rulz (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: POV statement

message: Can someone check if the NY Times really published that in a headline? It's cite 13.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.253.136.16 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like old vandalism that was never caught. I can't find the specific offending edit, but I've added the correct title nonetheless. Thank you for catching this! Juliancolton (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thousands of Retards Are Killed by Tidal Wave 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/52/6/pdf/i1520-0477-52-6-438.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:19, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.iwmbd.org/html/PUBS/publications/P024.PDF
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:29, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.em-dat.net/disasters/Visualisation/profiles/countryprofile.php
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 404 Undescribed
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:41, 404 Undescribed
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 3 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/library/sommer/pdfs/east_bengal_cyclone_1970.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:50, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 4 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000638/http://web.archive.org/web/20070622000638/http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/library/sommer/pdfs/east_bengal_cyclone_1970.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 403 Forbidden
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:02, 403 Forbidden
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 5 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.dec.org.uk/index.cfm/asset_id,905/index.html
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:31, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 6 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.islamonline.net/english/In_Depth/DisasterVictims/Articles/10.shtml
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-05-25 04:07:36, 400 Bad Request
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:33, 400 Bad Request
--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 7 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/cache/55359264.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:29, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:07:20, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 8 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/cache/43254554.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:29:29, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:07:21, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 9 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/cache/56613933.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:22, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:07:59, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 10 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/cache/39704983.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:31, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:08:21, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 11 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/Viewer.aspx?img=49506332&firstvisit=true&src=search¤tResult=0¤tPage=0
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:31, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:08:22, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 12 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.thehurricanearchive.com/cache/50108954.pdf
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-06 14:30:31, 404 Not Found
** In 1970 Bhola cyclone on 2011-06-24 04:08:29, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 13 

message: I have removed the 112-knot 1-minute sustained winds figure after finding that the JTWC has no wind data on it, while a Google search is mostly empty-handed. If this is to be re-added, I'd really like to see a lot of sources stating the same thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Winds 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 1970 Bhola cyclone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160512113154/http://www.emdat.be/country_profile/index.html to http://www.emdat.be/country_profile/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: @HarrySupertyphoon and others: The JTWC wind is 65kts as given by IBTrACS. Please do not change it unless a reliable source is given. Thank you. 2003 LN6 16:25, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to cast some doubt on that so-called wind estimate from the JTWC for various reasons. Firstly and the most important reason is that they did not monitor it as it was outside of their area of responsibility. Secondly, I looked at the JTWC's own best track files which are on their website and do not provide any intensity estimates for the Bhola Cyclone or any cyclones that they did not monitor in realtime. This prompts the question where did IBTRACS get the 65kt estimate for the Bhola cyclone from? Well after looking at the data, I noticed that IBTRACS takes their windspeed data for the Bhola Cyclone from a dataset called DS824 which they said is produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research. After a bit of digging, I was able to find this source which indicates that the dataset takes its track information from the JTWC and that the intensity estimates provided in the dataset for systems in the NIO and SHEM were generically assigned based on information from the NCDC, which in turn probably took its information from the IMD. As a result, I would suggest that we ignore the 65E intensity and continue to use the one provided by the Mariners Weather Log for the SSHWS classification if we really need one unless an estimate can be found elsewhere as I think this is the system that caused the SSHWS to be created.Jason Rees (talk) 12:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jason Rees: Thank you for your information. Can IBTrACS intensity data still be used for trackmaps, as they are now? 2003 LN6 15:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should only be using intensities provided by IBTRACS when they directly come from a warning center (Eg, NHC, Wellington JTWC etc) rather than a broader broad dataset such as DS824. As a result, the track map for the Bhola cyclone should probably be revised.Jason Rees (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  JTWC Wind