Talk:Hurricane Maria/Archive 1

Blackbird013 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC) I can not verify this source, but it indicates a government official has noted at least 256 documented deaths ^[1] as of October 2nd while CNN is being told the death count is currently only at 45 ^[2] There is no indication I can find that cellular companies are seeking any solar solutions (which have less logistical problems) but it is possible they will catch on after being contacted by Alphabet and reading the news cited below.

A number of Solar energy companies are working together to try to provide solutions that can be implemented quickly and diversify power in P.R.. ^[3]

Elon Musk of Space X has offered to help build a permanent solution based on Solar power. ^[4]

A group of Puerto Ricans within the mainland are working on an emergency solution that involves portable solar generator systems with plans to provide help and training to install them. ^[5]

All of this combined with known problems in multiple articles concerning fuel distribution and cost problems points to P.R. power being largely solar in the future.

This article mentions the exchange between San Juan Mayor Carmen Yulín and Trump. What it does not mention is that San Juan is arguably not only the capital but the port, so the things being shown may represent areas of Puerto Rico that are recovering the most quickly. ^[6]Blackbird013 (talk) 08:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no intention of attempting to edit the article. I have however spent many hours digging through information about what is actually going on. I'm leaving some of the most clear issues and information here for the main article writers to use.Blackbird013 (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Additional source for death count dispute Miami Herald. Bodies are being collected in 69 hospitals which exceeds the number of deaths listed by CNN. This October 2nd article also confirms that deaths are not all being counted because the military is collecting the bodies. It is unclear whether the mass graves involve military personnel or are in addition to civilian dug mass graves. ^[7]Blackbird013 (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC) This article also explains the discrepancies. If the body known or unknown has no death certificate it does not officially exist and can not be reported.

Why does only this hurricane warrant an "indirect deaths" column? This is not a distinction done for any others, and appears to be motivated beyond factual concerns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.88.38.114 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The aftermath section for Dominica is severely lacking in information. I realize that Puerto Rico, being the larger island and a US property, garners more media attention and has a greater following; neat work has been done on that section. However, Dominica suffered and continues to suffer from similar, if not worse levels of near-total destruction, with nation-wide food and water shortages. It would be awesome if some of you dedicated editors could give the section a little bit of love, as currently, these two sections are very disproportionate.

Some sources right off the bat:

• 'It's all gone': Hurricane-ravaged Dominica, on the front line of climate change, fighting to survive
• Dominica's Skerrit Reports on Recovery Effort After Hurricane Maria

Thanks User:TropicalAnalystwx13 for incorporating the above two sources. The section looks much healthier already! Auree ^★★ 04:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll reword some things and tackle more sources tomorrow, wasn't expecting the ReliefWeb sources to total to 55 pages worth of information haha. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Dominica Flash Appeal 2017: Hurricane Maria
• Dominica: Hurricane Maria Situation Report No. 5

Alternatively, we can use this talk section to compile sources for the Dominica aftermath. I would work on it myself, and probably will later on, but I'm currently swamped for time and busy with another project. Auree ^★★ 09:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you guys sure we should take Dr Jeff Masters' blog as the estimate? It is unconfirmed by an official source, and it is a high-end estimate. ChowKam2002 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Masters' blog relays the amount of disaster recovery aid requested for Puerto Rico and the USVI by their respective governors. It's not an estimate from Dr. Masters himself. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:08, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

How do you guys feel about splitting the Puerto Rico section into its own article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico now that the season's over? The section is far too big, so having an article of its own would help reduce clutter on the main page a lot. Jdcomix (talk) 14:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: is working on a draft for the aforementioned article. However its still not finished and IMO we wont see it go up until late January of the upcoming year. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 14:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

To me, the first sentence has two superlative phrases that fail to convey what Hurricane Maria was. Currently it mentions that it was the 10th most intense hurricane and the most intense in 2017. Neither of those (again, to me) seem to be the crux of the article. For that first sentence, I think it would be best to either skip records altogether and mention that it was the 13th TC of the 2017 season (which I tried but apparently it wasn't liked), or else include the most visible records (one of the most costly, deadly, destructive...). As a side note, it might also be wise to mention Harvey somewhere in the lede, as the triple-punch of Harvey, Irma, and Maria is an important aspect of the coverage. ~Araignee (talk • contribs) 16:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yesterday I had edited the infobox to agree with the more detailed table farther down in the article. Those edits were later reversed by MarioProtIV, though. If NOAA states $99 billion in damage, then why does the table show $103 billion? Which one is inaccurate, the infobox or the table? Academic Ninja (talk) 07:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

NOAA only counts USA damage. The other $4 billion came from elsewhere.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

What does "USA damage" mean? Damage in the US territories and mainland? If that is the case, then the value in the infobox should be what NOAA states plus those other $4 billion, because it's supposed to display all damage done by the hurricane, not just damage in a certain area. Academic Ninja (talk) 07:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

As things stand the table doesn't state $103 billion, just 99.9 bill, however, both should be consistent.Jason Rees (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw the table again, it looks like someone has changed it to show $99.4 billion. So, I guess this problem has been solved. Academic Ninja (talk) 07:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

We should use the number of distinct values to rank, not the number of contenders, as this is the practice of NHC as far as I can tell (they explicitly listed Hurricane Marie (2014) as tied as the then-fourth-strongest Pacific hurricane by winds, even though it is tied with most of the other Category 5 Pacific hurricanes by that measure and we have a tie between John and Patsy).--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: By now you should know well that the one and only source of information on a TC’s meteorological core details is the advisories, until the TCR is released. The operational best track does not count under any circumstances.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, in either case, saying the winds doubled in 24 hours is the most succinct way to summarize it. It’s completely unnecessary to make it more complicated, especially when we now have a MH article.—Jasper Deng (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

With the release of Maria’s TCR today, it seems like NHC opted to stick with the “official” number but also mentioned that there were an unknown amount, perhaps a thousand; of indirect deaths to the hurricane’s aftermath. Given that normally the deaths are reanalysed in TCR in past storms, it makes me think we should again drop the “official” range and go back to the 499 total from CNN. Despite the claims that this breaches WP:SYNTH, WP:V and WP:OR, I really don’t see how it is doing so; multiple sources including CNN (a reliable source generally), NYT and others have reported deaths from anywhere from 499 to 1,085. In fact, an article was published today based on the death undercounting which was the apparent result of data shortfall. I think we need to make a clear consensus on which totals we’re going to use which I will list below:

• 499 total from CNN’s research and what we used beforehand
• 1,052 total from NYT’s research
• 1,085 total from Vox

I’d suggest using the CNN value since it is probably the safest to go by and it is likely the recount will find numbers similar to CNN. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The death toll is under review and we'll have an official word on whether or not there will be an increase next month if I remember right. Best we at least wait for that. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 22:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

We use the official numbers in almost all cases for hurricanes, and we know there are flaws with the way that CNN did their calculation (several of the deaths they specifically called out and attributed to the hurricane weren't attributable to the hurricane upon analysis by government agencies). The problem with all of the higher claims is that a lot of them are not calculated in the same way as deaths from other hurricanes, and the overall death toll in the months after the hurricane was only 250 higher than in the previous year, which makes me skeptical of claims of a thousand dead, and is much more consistent with the government figure (it is also worth noting that death rates have been going up in Puerto Rico year over year; 2016 had about 100 more deaths in the same two-month period than 2015 did, despite no natural disaster occurring). A figure of as high as 500ish premature deaths is theoretically possible, given that we saw a post-hurricane mortality dip, and thus might have ended up with some people who were "on the brink" dying a month ahead of time, resulting in lower death counts in the next month; 1000 seems highly implausible, given the data we have. I think it is appropriate to note that the death toll is disputed, but going with the higher numbers does not seem justified when official sources seem to suggest that the true count is much lower. There is a continuing review of the death toll, which is much more in-depth than what the newspapers did, and is also done in accordance with the standard way of counting said deaths. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

We should have the preliminary report on the death toll within the next few days, so I would say we just wait a little longer. Unfortunatley, I believe the death toll is likely going to be over 1,000. If there are an excessive number of indirect deaths, I would suggest just merging them with the direct deaths and have (xxxx total) rather than splitting them, as we have done with many other deadly storms in the past. Cooper 11:56, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

After the results of the study we had been awaiting, it has been revealed that the official death toll of 64 is almost certainly redundant. My question now is what we should put as the death count. I would suggest using the 5,740 total as its more precise than a range, and we could include the range in the possible under counting of fatalities section. What do you think? Cooper 21:43, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

I still stress the importance of keeping the range until we get the study (that one you mentioned isn’t the one we’re waiting for). Unless @Hurricanehink: @Jason Rees: or @Cyclonebiskit: have another way of dealing with this, sticking with a range is the best option. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Still waiting on the George Washington University study which was ordered by the government. Once that one comes out we can revise the death toll. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know the actual toll, but it is definitely NOT as low as 112 Alex of Canada (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

For now I agree with @Cyclonebiskit and MarioProtIV:'s judgements on the death toll as the whole disaster has become very politicized and we are not here to play politics but to keep a neutral point of view. @Alex of Canada: Yes I personally agree that the death toll isnt as low as 112 but for now we need to keep what our reliable sources are saying.Jason Rees (talk) 11:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Donald Trump isn't a reliable source, though. When everyone but him is saying it, it seems quite obvious. Alex of Canada (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE we should not give undue weight towards one study that says 5,000 died in Maria. Yes it's very obvious the government is lying to us about the death toll but like @Jason Rees: said, we have to keep the official number within the range because that’s the "official" total (which is higher but PR refuses to admit it) and we have to keep a neutral view. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 11:49, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@Alex of Canada: The 112 deaths is not taken from Donald Trump and appears to be taken from the National Hurricane Centers tropical cyclone report on Hurricane Maria and is the total amount of deaths in various countries including 65 in PR. However, they note that PR's death toll is very uncertain and that they have just plumped for the official total. When that official total is updated then we will update the range further.Jason Rees (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If anything, yesterday's revelations make me more of a proponent of a death toll range here. I support the current death toll range in the article. I say this as someone who's normally against death toll ranges. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:20, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I found something relating the Harvard study to the Puerto Rican government from CNN:

"The Government of Puerto Rico welcomes the newly released Harvard University survey and we look forward to analyzing it," Carlos R. Mercader, executive director of the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration, said in a press release." This suggest that the government may analyze the report. Based kn this information, should we use the Harvard study total for now as it seems the GWU study may not be released for a while, and the government seems to be open to analyzing it? I don't want to start a big debate over this, but its just a suggestion based on this quote. Cooper 17:18, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The government may welcome it and we can use it but for now I think it's best to use a range for the deaths to avoid Wiki becoming dragged into the political mess.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

When will we see the results of the George Washington University study? Were they planed to be released this month? Cooper 17:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this but IIRC it was suppose to be out by now, so you're guess is as good as mine, but hopefully soon. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

I saw someone added this to the top end of the death range, but this is incorrect. Indeed, it isn't even what the study said (though some sources misinterpreted/misrepresented the study to claim that).

The number comes from a survey of 3,000 people, who claimed that 38 people in their households died between the hurricane and the end of the year. Harvard then extrapolated that out to the entire population and subtracted the previous year's death rate from that figure. The margin of error was significant - 793 to 8,498 deaths are all "possible" results, and of course all of that assumes that the death rate didn't go up for other reasons year over year (which isn't certain, as 2015 -> 2016 saw an increase in the death rate as well). It's not any sort of official or even unoffical death count, its an estimate, and it doesn't even have one significant digit of accuracy. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not make the range 112-8,498 then? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:36, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane María is not the worst hurricane to pass over Puwerto Rico, it is Huracán San Felipe II in 1928 wich has a higher category at the time of impact at the island and left 312 dead and over 500,000+ homeless. Sixty Minute Limit (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying explicitly it was worse? The category doesn't make a hurricane worse alone. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

From the lede of 1928 Okeechobee hurricane: "Throughout the island, an estimated 24,728 homes were destroyed and 192,444 were damaged, leaving over 500,000 people homeless. Heavy rainfall also led to extreme damage to vegetation and agriculture. On Puerto Rico alone, there were 312 deaths and about $50 million USD ($713 million today) in damage". The 312 deaths figure comes from: Wayne Neely (2014). The Great Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928. Bloomington, Indiana: iUniverse. ISBN 978-1-4917-5446-7. Retrieved May 7, 2015. 9³ (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Given the Government's reluctance to accurately document fatalities in the aftermath of Maria, I think we should discard the "official" death toll especially with more and more sources questioning its validity. Department of Public Safety explicitly stated that the official toll only covers deaths that have been physically checked by the medical examiner in San Juan. Countless people died and were buried without being checked by him. This includes 900 certified cremations thrown under "natural causes". Using the CNN total of 499 direct/indirect deaths--obtained from from half of the island's funeral homes--is likely safest baseline to start from. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Support - this is basically a repeat of what Myanmar did with Cyclone Nargis – the damage to fatalities ratio is far unrealistic (104B with “only” 55 deaths is not correct). But we may have to revisit this when the TCR comes out. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 15:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Strongly agree with with the above. I’d show more hesitance if this was a damage total dispute, but given the fact that people can’t come back to life, it’s obvious that this banana republic is undercounting the death toll. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons outlined already. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support. With the number of reliable sources reporting a much higher death toll, the official toll is too questionable at this stage to be used. ~ KN2731 {t ⋅ c} 10:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support As per the aforementioned reasons. Undescribed (talk) 18:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The problem here is that none of the other estimates are even remotely reliable. Using the 499 number is problematic as it isn't verified by anyone, and it isn't how deaths are actually counted for disasters like this, meaning that it isn't comparable to the other numbers. Worse, comparing the overall number of deaths on the island year-to-year, we only saw +200 or so deaths from 2016 to 2017 over the two month period after the hurricane - and 2015 to 2016 saw an increase of +100 deaths. This would indicate a number that is well below the claims of "500 to 1000", and is much more in line with official estimates, as death rates on Puerto Rico had been going up even prior to the hurricane. This doesn't necessarily mean that the official estimates are correct, of course, but pending a recount of the dead, I don't think that we should report it as being "at least" 499 deaths, because that isn't verifiable, and the lower estimates are much, much lower than that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have undone your edit pending further discussion here in light of the consensus above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon: we decided to discard the “official” total of 58 because for 1, the damage to death ratio is not at all realistic (with a damage toll that high, you’d expect at least >200 deaths in total). Plus, there were explicitly valid sources by CNN and other news sources, including Vox, that indicates the death toll from Maria is being severely underestimated by the PR government, who are probably hiding the real amount, which is probably around 800 (who although are conducting a reanalysis on the number of deaths chances are it will still be underestimated). We decided to go with the 499 total from PR for now because of the data found by CNN. Also, data indicates that there was a surge in the number of deaths in PR annually after the storm - those deaths were very likely if not certainly tied to Maria and the aftermath. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 17:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

what makes PR - a third world country government - so reliable though, compared to the comprehensive investigating from CNN? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

First off, the 58 number is outdated; it is 64 now, at least the last time I checked. The problem with the CNN numbers is that they aren't reliable, either. If you read the follow-up on the CNN article, the government responded to five deaths CNN claimed were caused by the hurricane in their claim of 499 hurricane deaths. The problem was that several of the deaths CNN called out in a high-profile fashion couldn't be linked to the hurricane - one of them (a suicide) was in a man who had been diagnosed with cancer, a second (a funeral director who died of a heart attack) had a history of heart disease and there was no evidence that his heart attack was in any way related to the hurricane, and the third couldn't be confirmed because they could not confirm it with the family and the doctor's note on the death certificate was natural causes. The problem with using CNN's numbers is that they're not how these deaths are tabulated in an official manner at all, and comparing them to official numbers is not really reasonable - they basically went around and asked a bunch of people, but that isn't how it actually works, neither in Puerto Rico nor anywhere else, for counting deaths. If you were to do that elsewhere, you'd likely have a bunch of people claiming deaths after the hurricane were linked to it. As noted by the authorities in the heart attack case:

"The gentleman had health conditions such as high blood pressure and cardiovascular disorders. On October 8, 2017, he arrived at the hospital due to a chest pain that he was suffering two days before receiving medical attention. Neither the patient nor the relatives in the interview conducted by the doctors in the hospital attribute his situation to Hurricane Maria. Molina died on October 11, 2017. The death cannot be attributed to the hurricane."

We're not doing an apples to apples comparison here, and the articles are sensationalist (and Vox is hardly a reliable source for this stuff, given its pretty clear political agenda). I'm not saying that the death toll might not be higher than the official numbers, but CNN's figures aren't reliable as an "at least", nor are they comparable to other death toll numbers (which are, again, done by actual professionals, not wandering around asking people if someone died as a result of a hurricane). I expect that the official death toll will go up, but that is why we say "at least". An "at least" number reported on Wikipedia should not go *down*.

I have zero problem with reporting that other sources have claimed higher death tolls; it is notable. But they aren't the same as the official numbers, and aren't tabulated in the same way, and thus, aren't comparable to the numbers seen elsewhere, in other articles about hurricane deaths, or even with other death counts in this article, which are official death tolls. The fact that the overall death count in PR only went up by about 200 total deaths in the two months afterwards relative to 2016 (and that the death rate in PR has been going up over the last few years) makes me very skeptical of the plausibility of claims of 1,000 or more deaths from the hurricane. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm having trouble with following this logic, or even reading it. Because of inappropriate methods of counts, along with bodies being buried on the spot and taken away (for safety reasons) by the military we are unlikely to ever have an official accurate count. What we do know is the reality that bodies were buried by family and friends due to lack of infrastructure, and that funeral homes were overflowing in spite of the military assisting in removing bodies. This has all been reported repeatedly with links provided here over time. The belief (not founded in hard data) that a population of over 3 million facing horrific devastation could not have as much as 1000 deaths is callous and inappropriate. No one can achieve an accurate count after so many bodies were removed, or ignored. Despite what some may think every life does matter, and regardless of how you present data if someone died due to lack of medical facilities or help and that aid was hindered by the hurricane damage and situation, then that death did indeed result from the hurricane. This entire disregard for the lives lost ignores hard data and relies on philosophy in an attempt to psychologically discount the significance of the damage of this hurricane and the decimation of a population. Per the official count if a body was not available to be certified by a single individual (sources have been linked) the person did not due to the hurricane. I would appreciate it if this is the last time I read these leaps of logic ignoring all available information in email notifications that once again someone is trying to discount the death toll or argue about why it must be lower than reasonable estimates. This incident can not be compared to any mainland hurricane event because no hurricane ever wiped out most of the mainland infrastructure.Blackbird013 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Though, CNN's isn't always reliable, no way can the death toll in Puerto Rico be only 68 due to the fact hat the hurricane made landfall with winds of 155 mph, the hurricane caused at least 99 billion and thirdly most news outlets investigations resulted in more than the official death toll; and as of December I believe they were doing a recount of the death toll. I do not know whether or not that resulted in the 68 deaths but as for now I believe the death toll is higher than 500 from what I learned about tropical cyclones and their paths. Swivel Here (talk) 04:30, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Most deaths from hurricanes come not from winds, but from flooding. The overall death count for all deaths on the island for the two months after the hurricane are only 200 above what it was for the same two months in 2016, and 2016 saw an increase of 100 deaths over those two months from 2015, so the overall death rate in Puerto Rico had been rising even before the hurricane. It is likely that only 100-200 people actually died as a result of the disaster, so the official death toll likely isn't too far off. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:44, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've gone back on the decision to ignore the official toll as it violates WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RGW. Best we just maintain the official as the primary but still include the large range of reported fatalities at least until the investigation ordered by Governor Rosselló is complete. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been seeing media reports misrepresenting this number.

The 1,427 number comes from a draft report from Puerto Rico, which itself comes from the number of excess deaths in the 4 month period after Hurricane Maria compared to the 2013-2016 average for the same time span. This isn't actually a new number; it was reported on back in June.

Some media reports are reporting this as "the government quietly admitted" to such and such many deaths; however, this is not the case.

The death rate is not constant from month to month or year to year; it went up from 2015 to 2016 as well, despite no major natural disaster occurring. Moreover, the death count was not consistent from month to month - we saw a surge of deaths in September followed by a dip in October (which could be indicative of some deaths occurring prematurely in September which would have otherwise happened in October, people on the brink of death who died a month early, basically, or it could be noise)).

Official disaster death tolls are not tabulated in this manner, which is why there is presently an official study being done to try and achieve a more definitive and accurate official death toll.

This is, unfortunately, a case of journalists misrepresenting/misunderstanding government data. That's not to say we shouldn't use this number, but we should be careful about directly saying it is hurricane deaths, as it is the number of excess deaths over a multi-year average, not the number of deaths which can be directly attributed to the hurricane. The government does believe it may be closer to the real number, though, per Pedro Cerame of the Puerto Rican government’s Federal Affairs Administration:

“We don’t want to say it out loud or publicize it as an official number. The official number will come, and it could be close. But until we see the study, and have the accuracy, we won’t be able to recognize the number as official.”

Given that the 1,427 number is indeed additional deaths in the four months after Hurricane Maria as compared to 2016, per this. It is thus likely the true number will likely be somewhat lower, as the death rate had been increasing in previous years as well - Puerto Rico's population is older than that of the continental US, resulting in a higher death rate overall due to aging.

We should be patient, especially in saying that it is "at least" or "greater than" this number. If we're giving minimums, we should not ever have to lower them; if we do, it means we were disseminating incorrect information. I think a range is probably the optimal solution here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I've made some significant revisions to this section to try and streamline it and make it more encyclopedic. I've worked to include all of the relevant data in this section while making it parse better and removed some of the back-and-forthing. Given we have a newly updated official estimated death toll, I think it is good to spruce it up. It might be worth including more details on the official government study here, as it is what led to the official count. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

The Death Toll should Specify that the overwhelming majority of the deaths indicated, were not DIRECTLY caused by the Hurricane. People who died Three, Four, Five or, Six months after the storm didn't die from the storm, they died from the after effects, eg their incompetent mayor, & island government which failed to prepare the island for the storm. It needs to state these deaths were Indirectly caused by the storm, otherwise we will be back here six months from now debating this issue. Say another 2000 people die between now, and then. Did those people die from the Hurricane too?--Subman758 (talk) 03:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

From what i understand the research has not got to the stage whereby they are able to dictate which deaths are direct and indirect. As a result, i believe that it would be original research for us to do so.Jason Rees (talk) 11:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

isn't direct deaths deaths caused by the hurricane for example tree falls house collapse floods and indirect would be maybe traffic accident during power failure or something, adding in deaths of a guy falling of the roof doing repairs is kinda stupid because if we add any death which only happened because there was a hurricane otherwise the guy wouldn't have been on his roof than we have to add in to the death toll of most events that have happened for example world war 2 we have to add in anyone killed by the communists in Europe behind the iron curtain because that wouldn't of happened if not for world war 2 or September 11 we have to add in all deaths caused by the war in Afghanistan which wouldn't have happened if not for the September 11 attacks this would never end. עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

it should also specify that it's a computer model estimate not an actual death toll. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I propose that we split the sections about Maria's impact on Puerto Rico into a new article titled Effects of Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico. This would shorten the length of this very long article and provide more room for detail in all aspects of the storm. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: has a draft for that but he seems to have abandoned it or something (I might just move it to draftspace or something to get it going), but yes I agree we need a article for the effects as well considering it’s nearly been a year since the storm struck and it caused basically a Katrina for Puerto Rico. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 20:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This is a preliminary number that's not based on actual death counts. For example there should be 3 numbers, those injured, those who died, and those who are missing. This is how death/injury tolls are given. Ergzay (talk) 05:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

based on this new standard are we going to change the death tolls for other events for example the September 11 attacks by adding in anyone who died from things like cancer which was caused by the dust which has a bigger relation to the attack than counting someone who died from repairing his roof damaged in the hurricane. עם ישראל חי (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to play politics all you like, but for now the official number stands at 2975. This number will probably change a fair bit over the next few months as further research is conducted but it is not Wikipedia's job to play poltics and split in to direct, indirect, missing or injuries at the moment.Jason Rees (talk) 14:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in playing politics. I'd counter you are the one playing politics. The paper states the totals are estimated, asserting that the totals are fact is WP:OR. Ergzay (talk) 04:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

its not an official number its a computer model estimate עם ישראל חי (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's an official number. It's the one confirmed by the Puerto Rican government. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

still an estimate based on computer models not actual dead bodies עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

The Government of Puerto Rico placed the death toll at 2,975 for the territory based on the GWU study, and that's what we go with. It's not our job to be morticians and verify every single death. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 04:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted some of the WP:OR changes. Ergzay (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ergzay: And I have reverted you; please do not revert back per WP:BRD. If anything, judging the validity of an official death toll is far more WP:OR than simply stating it because us editors are in no way going to be more reliable than the government itself. While the paper itself might only deem it an estimate, the government has furthermore ratified it. Contrast this with the situation we had before the estimate came out, where there were credible challenges by reliable sources to the government's original claim, which has not materialized here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what WP:BRD means. It does not mean you can revert willy-nilly as you see fit. I am not "judging" the validity. Stating the estimate as fact is what would be called judging. The paper specifies it as an estimate and thusly so should Wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be involved with picking who is correct between the Federal government vs Puerto Rican government. Reverted. Please don't revert again. Ergzay (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. It also does not mean you get to continue to insist on your version when you know well that it is disputed and as of now, has consensus against it (a headcount yields 4-2 here). You are the one who should not be reverting again, since you were the B, I am the R. It's time to do the "D", not BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.... If you revert again, you will be reported for edit warring.

Trump not believing the death toll does not imply the whole federal government not believing it. In any case, the judgement of "official" death toll lies with the local government, the one that dealt directly with the hurricane.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Please stop engaging in edit warring. What would make you happy here besides a complete revert? Let's work to make this article better. Ergzay (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Are you not interested in discussing this? You still appear to be ignoring WP:BRD. Ergzay (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ergzay: This is not how it works. You need to let the status quo stand first, especially as consensus appears to be leaning rather strongly against you. I already gave my rebuttal to your argument above.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: What is the source of your consensus statement? I see you reverting the article and several other people making changes, myself included. The consensus appears against you, not the other way around. Please don't hold the article hostage. Ergzay (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Four out of six editors here, including me, oppose your changes, and the only other supporter of your change has not provided a substantial argument other than "it's a computer estimate" which is a red herring with respect to the case in point.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I count Ilikeyouyouyou, AmYisroelChai, Audacity, and myself for editors in support of these changes looking at this page and the page history. You make the statement "In any case, the judgement of "official" death toll lies with the local government". Is that not your opinion? Ergzay (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Regardless, discussing consensus here is irrelevant. We should be working toward making changes we mutually agree on. What in these changes (specifically) do you have issue with besides a blanket revert? Ergzay (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The local government statement is the official death toll, that's not an opinion. All WP:WPTC articles are handled that way for consistency. We note major discrepancies when necessary, as we have since the death toll controversy arose with Maria, but the listed value is always differed to the government. There is an entire section and article dedicated to the uncertainties. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 16:51, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I've temporarily reverted my own changes. If it's standard policy that we always take local government statements as the official death toll then that is understandable. Can you point me to where this policy is written? Ergzay (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cyclonebiskit: Pinging so you can respond. Ergzay (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately it's not written down on the project page since the primary WPTC editors are always in contact off-site and we deal with most happenings that way. But other senior members of the project Juliancolton, Thegreatdr, Titoxd, and Hurricanehink can vouch for this. Apologies in advance for these things being unclear. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Ergzay: If they don't participate in this discussion then their viewpoints are as good as not heard; they did not provide any edit summaries to that effect either, so I don't see why you would count them. In any case, consider my edit warring report to be withdrawn as you self-reverted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

It's the best estimate we have atm. Just be clear in the prose that this is an estimate. Or put "3,057 estimated" in the infobox or something like that. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 17:36, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I have attempted that but that is what Jasper Deng repeatedly reverts. Ergzay (talk) 18:20, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Per Maria’s TCR: In Puerto Rico, the death toll is highly uncertain and the official number stands at 65, which includes an unknown number of indirect deaths. It should be noted that hundreds of additional indirect deaths in Puerto Rico may eventually be attributed to Maria’s aftermath pending the results of an official government review. Well, the review is done, and the PR government concludes the death toll was 2,975. For anyone questioning that total because it’s an estimate, remember that tropical cyclones can (and have killed) many thousands of people, such as Hurricane Katrina, which the NHC said “Especially for Louisiana and Mississippi, the number of direct fatalities is highly uncertain and the true number will probably not ever be known.” The death toll is like the Census when dealing with these large numbers. A good solid estimate from properly trained researchers is probably as good as it’s gonna get, which is more technical than the 6,000—12,000 deaths estimated from the 1900 Galveston hurricane. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I grant and understand that. I do not disagree that it is the official number accepted by the Puerto Rican government. I'm not proposing to remove the numbers. I'm proposing to continue to list them as estimates, even if they're the accepted numbers. Can we compromise with some wording like, "official estimate"? This would note that it is both the official number and also estimated. Ergzay (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

The reason there isn't really a WikiProject policy on these issues is that there never has been a problem about them. The vast majority of the time, official sources satisfy the verifiability, neutral point of view and original research content policies Wikipedia-wide. As noted by Hurricanehink, the Tropical Cyclone Report—the reference text of record in this subject area actually defers to a future government study; this study is what produced the figure of 2975 deaths.

Until there are reliable sources that call into question that number—and I haven't seen any brought up on this talk page—trying to remove/qualify the total figures would be giving undue weight to a minority view. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:51, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I oppose adding an "estimated" simply for the reason Tito gives. Government death tolls are always estimates to some degree; in a large country you can never be sure of how many truly died from a storm, because records are never 110% comprehensive.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as there's much back and forth going on this, please discuss the replacement of the term "estimate" with "official estimate" and for that term to be used wherever the 3,057 or 2,975 numbers are used. In some cases the term "official estimate as of August 28th, 2018" can be used where appropriate. If you disagree please state your reasoning why. If you disagree please propose an alternate version if you can. Ergzay (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that it needs to be repeated constantly. The official estimate should indeed be noted, but I think "estimate" is sufficient in most places. The number in question is taken from a particular study, but it wasn't actually done by the government, but by a university; the number was used by the government, but the government itself (neither FEMA nor the PR government) actually created the number themselves. Moreover, 2,975 and 3,057 are honestly cases of false precision, and give the misleading impression that they are an accurate count; they're not. I'm not sure if we should even use those numbers, as they could be off by hundreds to thousands. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

We always should use the government number as it is an official number regardless of being questioned. Also, 3,057 is the final number when you combine the other deaths Maria caused in other areas it affected (Dominica, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc.) with the 2,975 in PR, in case any one did not know that. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I will suggest that since 2,975 has been declared the official death count we simply use it but put an asterisk after counts based on it that links to the count article, e.g. "3,057 deaths *". The counts from other places are dissimilar from the Maria estimated range of excess deaths approach -- 2,975 being the statistical center point of a range of estimated excess deaths (from about 900 to 8,000) over a 6 month period. Typically death counts do not cover a 6-month range and are not statistical estimates, but with the number being officially official, though disputed and caveated ... Just use it and make a minimal "*" mark seems the best to me. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Fatalities should be differentiated (at least in the infobox) since there is some controversy over the indirect vs direct deaths due to the hurricane itself. For example the Hurricane Florence page says that there were 28 direct and 17 indirect fatalities. If the data for Florence is presented in that way, Maria should also show different causes of indirect vs direct deaths. I added a reliable source to show that the G.W. study death toll includes INDIRECT casualties of the sort researchers counted but users continue to remove the data. Right now I cannot re-add the proper data since it has been protected until October 2. Can someone who has higher editing privileges please re-insert the correct data? Yodabyte (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hurricane Florence has the differentiation between direct and indirect as we are able to determine such through available sources. The same cannot be said for Maria. While we know a large portion of the deaths in Puerto Rico are indirect, we do not have any numbers for this. Applying a number would violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as the GWU report makes no such differentiation. All we know is at least 64 deaths were direct in the territory with hundreds of potential direct deaths never properly addressed. The most appropriate action here is to list a "total" number of fatalities and note in prose that the total is inclusive of direct and indirect. There's an entire article dedicated to the death toll issues and the reported totals. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

The GWU study contains no such clear differentiation, nor does the source at TIME, which you repeatedly cite, say that it does. General Ization ^Talk 19:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cyclonebiskit. I understand better now what the issue is.Yodabyte (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

For the record the TIME source shows that the GWU study differentiates direct and indirect deaths, though it doesn't give the specific figures. The fatality differentiation needs to be be noted in the infobox, probably in parentheses, next to the total number of 3,057. Yodabyte (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any mention of that. It only states that the study covers the estimated number of deaths in the six months after the hurricane, which would inherently include deaths from the hurricane itself. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:14, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the TIME article, but only very subtly. Note the last sentence of the following passage:

So it would seem that the GWU study did separate direct and indirect fatalities, but did not include those figures in the report. Undescribed (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I read in an article that according to the GWU study, the initial 64 death count was the number of direct deaths (died immediately or from direct storm-related causes), while the remainder of the 2,975 deaths were indirect. I can find this article if you guys are interested (after the full page protection period ends). By the way, please stop edit warring over the content. The 2,975 deaths in Puerto Rico are the confirmed total deaths (direct + indirect), and this was from a reliable, independent study. If you can't accept this, that's your problem, and it doesn't matter what political viewpoints you may hold. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:29, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is one article that elaborates on the stark differences. The initial 64 death toll "...mostly counted direct deaths...overlooking deaths from power cuts and lack of water..." (Hurricane Maria was). So, that's what it is. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 23:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

There is no explicit mention of all the deaths being indirect in the study, and we can't assume such either. Media assuming such doesn't translate to reality since we have access to the original source. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Considering the sheer number of fatalities and from a historical standpoint on how this has been dealt with for previous storms (Mitch, Jeanne, etc.), there is no need to include (includes indirect deaths). Cooper 22:31, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I changed Maria's deadliest hurricane since (year) to deadliest since Mitch in '98, since the death tolls that are currently up are 20 above Jeanne in '04. YellowSkarmory (talk) 22:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Being" in the lead part is unnecessary 158.182.228.147 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done DannyS712 (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the lead, change to "and is also the deadliest Atlantic hurricane since Hurricane Jeanne in 2004" 219.76.15.16 (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done--B dash (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Want to add more words to the US Virgin Islands 172.84.252.24 (talk) 17:12, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 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. Happy Holidays! ᗙ DBigXrayᗙ 17:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to add more text to US virgin islands page Starboy387373383 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Please Starboy387373383 (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Starboy387373383, you can suggest edits here on this talk page on the form "please change X to Y" citing reliable sources – Thjarkur (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I will like to add more text to the page Starboy387373383 (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Lead section, changed tenth-most-intense to tenth most intense 116.48.204.57 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

As a heads up, I boldly trimmed the lead section. The goal was a manageable length for an overview of Hurricane Maria. I don't think I removed any info per se, but just made things more general. Feel free to edit (it's not perfect), but consider if something is vital to add to the lead section.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@GoldGamer32: @Super Cyclonic Storm Corona:

Either way, make sure the caption matches.

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 00:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Super Cyclonic Storm Corona, MarioProtIV, GoldGamer32, and LightandDark2000: Just pinging the four of you as you are the only editors to the article this month and the only edits have been to the image in the infobox (or the description) and there are a number of reverts. I would like to request that there be a discussion here or elsewhere about what image needs to be in the infobox instead of each edit switching it to a different image. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

3,057 death toll hurricane maria Date: September 16, 2017 – October 2, 2017 2601:81:8581:8C0:15B8:7BF7:2909:81C8 (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

 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. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:46, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Why do we mention the monetary cost of the storm's damage in the lead, but not the number of lives lost? Seems like the wrong priority. Is there any objection to changing this? Nutiketaiel (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the section on the US Virgin Islands, we have "peer" when we mean to have "power." Summer Ficarrotta (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 14:18, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Javiquinones.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2019 and 17 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jesseniaortiz3157.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I've noticed that this page had some missing information to it's thing. 103.101.107.167 (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:54, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add following sentence to the bottom of 'Impact on Dominica' section. Post-hurricane relief aid that was brought to Dominica from regional partners and aiding countries additionally brought several non-native species that became established and which local stakeholders are still trying to remove in 2022. ^[1] VandenBurgMP (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Icabobin (talk) 14:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The offical death toll in Puerto Rico was 64, the higher number cited in the article was calculated as excess deaths by a George Washington University study. I am not aware that "excess deaths" have been used to describe other disasters. At least both figures should be cited along with a description of the reason for the difference. Thank you. 47.134.211.161 (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Pinchme123 (talk) 01:24, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

2,981 deaths is the official figure. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:22, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

As a subsection to "Criticism of US response", add the following text:

The lack of federal support raised questions from the media regarding the U.S. Government's dispensability in aiding its outlying territories in proportional levels to the contiguous state governments. A 2019 paper published by Willison, et al. titled Quantifying Inequities in US Federal Response to Hurricane Disaster in Texas and Florida Compared with Puerto Rico concluded that the federal response did "not align with storm severity or prevention and recovery needs and may substantially affect deaths and recovery rates." This discrepancy in aid coincided with President Trump's outward criticism of the "absurd" amount of funding being allocated to the island prompted a journalistic response that aimed at exposing the inequalities and inefficiencies of the federal response.

Further analysis concluded that media response from the U.S. mainland generally occurred along party alignment and general opinion of President Trump. For example, Fox News Network, regarded as a conservative-leaning major news network, reported on Puerto Rico far less than CNN and MSNBC, which were more vocal in their criticism of the Trump administration's response to the Hurricane. Moreover, national media coverage of Puerto Rico after Maria was significantly less than coverage of Harvey and Irma's aftermath in Texas and Florida, prompting questions of the US media's indispensability to report on Puerto Rico. An uptick in reporting on the island's situation coincided with the Trump administration's lack of response in federal relief aid, thus directing the overarching narrative. As a result, a quarter of national headlines discussing the situation in Puerto Rico in the two-week post-landfall period included "Trump". Most key reporting on Puerto Rico's relief from the mainland US, however, was conducted by individual reporters and smaller independent media companies who frequently challenged the local and federal government's policy, contributing to the development of public discontent with the governmental response. A 2017 report from the MIT Media Lab concluded that "the language used to discuss Maria was far more political with several mentions of “Congress,” “Senate,” “Democrats,” “Republicans,” “debt” or “tax.” Coverage of Harvey’s floods near Houston, on the other hand, focused more heavily on the storm’s toll on people, with high usage of terms like “victim” and “family.” In contrast to the national non-reaction to the unfolding humanitarian crisis, local, Spanish-speaking outlets, like Telemundo and Univision, immediately mobilized several reporting teams to cover the crisis, primarily focusing their content on relief and aid opportunities as opposed to fueling political banter. The disparity between national news and local media's coverage was seen by many as a representation of the national media's inherent biases and coverage along the lines of cultural affinity. A 2017 Washington Post article compared the experience of predominantly-black residents in Flint, Michigan after the water crisis they experienced to the reality of Puerto Ricans after Hurricane Maria, aiming to tie the lack of national attention to the racial biases inherent in the American media's psyche.

The lack of media and governmental response to the island's needs prompted questions about Puerto Rico's political status. A New York Times poll conducted in the months preceding the Hurricane showed half of Americans did not know Puerto Ricans were American citizens. The debate centered around the Jones Act, which prompted the local government to petition the United States government to temporarily lift it during the Hurricane's direct relief aftermath, further engendered feelings of discontent for Puerto Rico's de facto colonial status. Local media portrayals frequently regarded the United States as a modern imperial superpower, which retained its colonial possessions and subjected them to unequal standards of political consideration in comparison to their counterparts on the mainland. Documentaries like Aftershocks of Disaster: Puerto Rico Before and After the Storm (Haymarket Books, 2019), released Aug 2020, highlighted the grassroots movement to foster self-sustainability in the absence of an adequate governmental response. The documentary touched on the displacement of Puerto Ricans to the US mainland in the aftermath of the hurricane, as well as the resiliency and community efforts of Puerto Ricans who remained on the island. With respect to the response from the Puerto Rican diaspora on the mainland, the arts became a vehicle for the amplification of public discontent with the island's political status. Felipealborsharvard (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Criticisms need verifiable attribution with specific citations. Statements of of objective facts in Wikipedia voice need good and specific references for verifiability. A critic may connect the dots and form a conclusion that is clearly attributed. Without such attribution, the conclusions, especially in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, cross the line into an original synthesis of published materials, which is not allowed. Even with attribution, criticism needs good 3rd party references to show what qualifies it for inclusion. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, I would like to add information regarding Military and Foreign Military response to the Hurricane, specifically in regards to Puerto Rico. To include examples of Aid rendered, Supply's delivered, Vessels and Heavy equipment (types/Names), as well as dates and manpower Figures to back them. There is what I consider to be interesting information regarding type and number of Missions undertaken and by which Specific units. I would like to use the example of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster relief page which has a subsection on Military and Foreign Military response to the event. In this case it would be folded into the aftermath tab subsection Puerto Rico Aftermath on the main Hurricane Maria Page; titled Military and International Response. Thank you for your time!

Below links to some of the sources I plan to use: - https://www.usace.army.mil/About/History/Historical-Vignettes/Relief-and-Recovery/154-Hurricane-Maria/ - https://centropr-archive.hunter.cuny.edu/centrovoices/current-affairs/military-mission-puerto-rico-after-hurricane-was-better-critics-say#:~:text=The%20military%20brought%20manpower%20to,affairs%20teams%20and%20tower%20climbers. - https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2967.html - https://dod.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0917_hurricane-maria/ - https://www.jcs.mil/Media/News/News-Display/Article/1335933/over-11000-dod-personnel-aid-puerto-rico-hurricane-relief-efforts/ FNPilot (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add a 1 image and add more information
Template:
{{Other hurricane uses|List of storms named Maria|the Atlantic hurricane of the 2017}} 112.209.26.43 (talk) 02:32, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 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. Tollens (talk) 02:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Diff:

add a the in the Diff 112.209.26.43 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: clearly not an improvement. M.Bitton (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add a new infobox

 
{{Infobox weather event
 | name              = Hurricane Maria
 | image     = Hurricane Maria 2017-09-19 1742Z (gallery).jpg
 | caption = Hurricane Maria near peak intensity to the southeast of [[Puerto Rico]] on September 19
 | formed            = September 16, 2017
 | dissipated        = October 2, 2017
 | extratropical     = September 30
 | basin = Atl
}}{{Infobox weather event/NWS
| winds = 150
| pressure = 908
}}{{Infobox weather event/Effects
 | year              = 2017
 | fatalities = 3,059 total
 | damage = 9160600000
 | damage-suffix = [[List of costliest tropical cyclones|Fourth-costliest]] [[tropical cyclone]] on record; costliest in [[Dominica]]n and [[History of Puerto Rico|Puerto Rican]] history
| areas = {{flatlist|
* [[Bahamas]]
* [[South Florida]], [[Central Florida]] and the [[Florida Panhandle]]
* [[Cuba]]
* [[Louisiana]] (especially [[Greater New Orleans]])
* [[Mississippi]]
* [[Alabama]]
* most of the [[Eastern United States]]
* [[Eastern Canada]]
}}
| ibtracs = 
| refs = 
}}{{Infobox weather event/Footer
| season = [[2005 Atlantic hurricane season]]
| related = <div class="center">{{Hurricane Maria related}}</div>
}}

122.2.114.203 (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done with corrections applied ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 03:42, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Fix a 2005 Atlantic hurricane season to 2017 Atlantic hurricane season 122.2.114.203 (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done Chlod (say hi!) 04:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Hurricane Maria has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add a ibtracs id 2017260N12310 in the Infobox

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Just a heads up since I technically undid this request - the IBTrACS link is now automatically generated by WikiData:Property:P4540, so the parameter isn't needed here. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:59, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Hoguert: any specific reasons why a six-hour difference in time - or, for that cause, a 5 knot difference in the official intensity analysis - should outweight the better aesthetic of the old image? Incidentally, the NHC TCR itself uses an image that is off peak for the cover. JavaHurricane 13:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Six hours difference is not a "small" difference, and since your decision to revert the image to the old one was mostly opinion based, I'll share some of mine as well. I personally don't really like the old image since it not only doesn't represent what Maria accurately looked like at peak intensity, but also the eye isn't as well defined in the old photo then in the new one. Also on that last point, it's not a good argument at all because NHC has done that multiple times when it comes to the front cover of their TCR reanalysis. Here's a few example of them using photos of hurricanes not at their peak intensity. Hurricane Ophelia (2017), Hurricane Rafael (2024), Hurricane Tammy (2023), Hurricane Nate (2017), Hurricane Teddy. Hoguert (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Hoguert: that's precisely the point: that the NHC itself is not beholden to using the peak intensity picture for representation, and as such I don't see the compulsion for us to use one as well. As for six hours: the difference in time is arguably minor enough in this case due to the small difference in the intensity (as per the NHC analysis), unlike in the case of, say, Milton. As for the aesthetics, I would argue that the CDO in the old vis image was rather more solid than in the nighttime IR image that is now in use, outweighing the somewhat better eye on the IR image; but ultimately it comes down to tastes, I fear. JavaHurricane 10:57, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand why File:Maria 2017-09-19 2115Z.jpg can't become the lead image solely because it wasn't taken at its peak intensity. In one of my edit summaries for justifying the proposed image, I said "WP:WPTC/IMG says that true-color imagery is preferred over infrared imagery. MOS:LEADIMAGE says the obvious or usual type of image, usually what readers will expect to see, should be the lead image. That would be true-color imagery, as it replicates what the human eye would see. (e.g., a bad lead image for Earth would be an IR nighttime image)", but @MarioProtIV insists that the peak image must be used. I disagree. The most appropriate lead image is one that visualizes what the human eye would see, and I don't understand why a false color image would be better than a true color image when they show virtually the same thing. I really want MarioProtIV to explain, in detail, why the nighttime peak images should be used, and why the true color image shouldn't. Columbia719 (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

See Hurricane Eta as well as Lorenzo 2019 and Matthew 2016, which uses IR imagery for their peaks which occurred overnight just like Maria’s did. This project has had a long history of edit warring and conflicts about TC imagery and I really would not want this to become another instance, especially seeing how some recent edits at Hurricane Delta appears to be starting that exact thing again. If we have the peak at night time then IR is generally preferable especially if the structure is most defined at that point. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:36, 7 September 2025 (UTC)

The image for Eta is a special case, as the photo was taken using sensors that can capture the state of the atmosphere at nighttime, include cloud details. I consider those images exceptions because those images can replicate visible light, even if the clouds are greyscale. However, the Maria image didn't use those sensors. For Lorenzo and Matthew, they were only Category 5s at nighttime, so an IR image would be an exception. Maria became a Category 5 on September 19 00:00 UTC, and maintained that intensity until September 20 06:00 UTC, except a couple of hours after Maria made landfall in Dominica. By the time the proposed image was taken, it was very close, if not at its peak windspeed, with a pressure difference in the single digits. The visual structure is virtually identical to the peak image as well. Will a slight difference in intensity and structure really matter to a reader? Both were very strong tropical cyclones when they were taken, so the peak image shouldn't contain much information different from the true color image. The project and site guidelines, which prefer visible light imagery, apply here. To support my argument, I'll mention the appropriate guidelines with quotes. The text that support my argument will be underlined. WP:WPTC/IMG says that true-color imagery is preferred over infrared imagery. The quote is:

The following indicates the order of precedence for these images.

1. The most iconic image of the storm. If such an image exists, it should be used as the main infobox image. Most of the time there will be no exceptions (unless a new image proposed is a significant improvement.) It should always be a high-quality, true-color, visible satellite image.

MOS:LEADIMAGE says the obvious or usual type of image, usually what readers will expect to see, should be the lead image. That would be a visible light image. The quote is: "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic; they should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see."

A bit off topic, I'm also not a fan of edit warring. Conflicts are natural, they will happen in the future, and the only way to manage them is to find a resolution. Not all conflicts can be prevented. I also really wouldn't want this to become another instance, which is why I started a discussion on the talk page instead of edit warring. I'm glad you don't want to edit war for a lead image, and I appreciate that you're discussing this in a formal and civil manner. Columbia719 (talk) 00:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Just a friendly ping, in case you forgot to reply to my response. @MarioProtIV Columbia719 (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

It's been a week since the discussion started. Since there has been no comments that explain how the project and site guidelines don't apply here nor justify violating them, I will restore the true color image. Anyone who disagrees with the image should raise their arguments here. Columbia719 (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I wouldn't add it back yet, just because Mario hasn't responded doesn't mean you could just revert it back since no clear consensus hasn't been reached. Hoguert (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

There are many instances where IR images were used at peak, such as the ones I mentioned but more specifically Typhoon Haiyan which specifically peaked at nighttime and uses IR imagery. Per guideline number 4: Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap, also known as nighttime images for their use when tropical cyclones peak at times when the sun is not shining on them. Overlaid visible imagery is almost always preferredover overlaid infrared imagery. Exceptions are in cases where a nighttime image is more clearly representative of the storm's character. A nighttime image is not only used for if a storm peaked at nighttime and can be a last resort if the visible images do not clearly represent the storm.. Maria had not peaked yet at 20z and didn’t do so for another 10 or so hours. It is much better to be representative of the true peak then hours beforehand when there is a distinct image of the peak available. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:08, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Overlaid visible imagery is almost always preferred over overlaid infrared imagery should speak for itself. It doesn't get any clearer than that. In case that sentence isn't strong enough, there's more.

In the first sentence of the second paragraph, it says. Where possible, the picture of the storm used should be a satellite image at or near its official peak intensity as determined by their respective Regional Specialized Meteorological Center. A useful sentence to follow, but is not encouraged if the storm peaked at night time, as said here: A nighttime image is not only used for if a storm peaked at nighttime and can be a last resort if the visible images do not clearly represent the storm. I explained clearly how a single-digit barometric pressure difference does not visually matter to a reader. There's even more than that.

In the guideline, they list the order of precedence for these images. High-resolution true-color visible imagery is placed second, and Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap is listed fourth. Another argument that the guideline specifically recommends true-color visible imagery over nighttime images. As I said before, Maria was a Category 5 when the true-color image was taken, and how no reader will care about a single-digit barometric pressure difference. My other arguments can be read above this thread, and I will refrain from repeating myself.

MarioProtIV, you need to understand that the project and site guidelines state that visible imagery is almost always preferred over nighttime peak images. Your arguments contradict the guideline you cited. I really hope you reply instead of ignoring me for a week, even after I pinged you twice. I am trying to resolve this dispute between you and me, but you are making it more difficult than it should be. In your reply, please do not address this paragraph. I only want to see your argument for keeping the nighttime image, if you have any remaining. Columbia719 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the late response but because I have a job during the week and am busy I don’t see the alerts too often so I never saw this particular one. As for the image, the meteorological history page already has the image there at peak intensity so there is no reason why the main article shouldn’t. As I’ve said, I’ve cited numerous examples where infrared nighttime peaks were the outcome like Haiyan which peaked at nighttime its time. I’m tired of having to get into disputes about images which were really bad for the project in the past specifically in 2020/21 so we might as well just go with a nighttime visible like Eta/Lee and end it here and now. I already requested Sandy to make one so we might as well just wait MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 22:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to keep it brief and short so I don't bludgeon the discussion, but the presence of the image in other articles doesn't justify the project and sitewide guideline violations. There are so many statements in WP:WPTC/IMG and MOS:LEADIMAGE, which I mentioned above, that discourage the use of the image that it shouldn't be ignored. The only image I will support is a true-color one that shows Maria as a strong Category 5 hurricane. There's no grayscale nighttime images that do show Maria at its peak, as the only one was taken near 20 Sep 0600Z, when Maria had 140 kts and 913 mbar due to an ERC, weaker than the true-color image. I'll try to find other methods of resolving this dispute. Columbia719 (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from this discussion for a while. I rest my case. Columbia719 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

And to make sure you do respond to this discussion, @MarioProtIV Columbia719 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Alright. I've relaxed and I'm ready to discuss this issue again.

@MarioProtIV, I understand you want to use the nighttime peak image in the infobox. While using peak images in general have been a standard for many tropical cyclone articles, WP:WPTC/IMG and MOS:LEADIMAGE, especially the former, explicitly state that nighttime peak images should not be used solely because they exist. Mario, I strongly recommend you familiarize yourself with those guideliens to fully understand which images are appropriate for the lead image. The lack of understanding of these guidelines contributes to disputes like this. You can choose to not take my advice, but this likely won't be beneficial to you and the tropical cyclone community in the future. If you do not respond in a timely manner, I will find another method of resolving this dispute. I am not willing to bend the rules for personal preferences. Columbia719 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I'm willing to compromise. I'll keep the vis light image, but the peak image will be moved to the met history section. How does that sound? Columbia719 (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Why can't we just put the peak image in the infobox and put the vis light in the met history? Hoguert (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines in WP:WPTC/IMG and MOS:LEADIMAGE, as I have explained extensively before, say that the nighttime peak image shouldn't be used as the lead image. Mario wants the peak image to be used in the article. As a compromised, I moved the peak image to the met history section and put the vis light image in the infobox. Columbia719 (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

But we haven't heard a response from him on whether or not he agrees, so don't change it now. Hoguert (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. If he posts his opposition on this discussion, I will revert. If he ignores, it would likely mean he's okay with the edit, he hasn't seen it yet, he doesn't care, or he disproves of the edit but does not want to take action against it. Regardless if he agrees or not, or if he even responds, he has not explained how the image justifies violating WP:WPTC/IMG and MOS:LEADIMAGE. As I have explained before, the nighttime image would be a violation of project and site guidelines when presented in the infobox. What matters is if he explains why he disagrees on this talk page, with adequate reasoning. As I said before, the image in the infobox is in violation of project and site guidelines, regardless of whether he agrees or not, and it should not be kept there. Columbia719 (talk) 02:24, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@FourNoddlers: Are you really going to drag this out again? The entire discussion above shows why I really did not want to attempt to start this up again. I’ve also noticed you’ve been very picky about peak images lately such as at Hurricane Michelle for nearly identical reasons. Maria is no different and because it peaked at nighttime that image should be used, as there is precedent for this (see Haiyan, Lorenzo, etc). --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:10, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV: In one of your edit summaries, you mentioned that WP:WPTC/IMG recommends File:Maria 2017-09-20 0238Z (Coastline-less).jpg. Could you point to where the essay states this? FourNoddlers (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Point 4 reads "Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap, also known as nighttime images for their use when tropical cyclones peak at times when the sun is not shining on them. Overlaid visible imagery is almost always preferredover overlaid infrared imagery. Exceptions are in cases where a nighttime image is more clearly representative of the storm's character. A nighttime image is not only used for if a storm peaked at nighttime and can be a last resort if the visible images do not clearly represent the storm.". The current visible imagery is not at peak and was taken 5 hours beforehand when Maria was at 145 kt / 920 mb per the TCR. The current true color imagery is sunlit and the size makes it hard to see where exactly PR is, and thus degrades the quality of the image somewhat IMO (same way was the case with Irma’s image) Thus, I move to point 4 of the guideline. The 0238Z image is taken exactly at peak intensity per the TCR, and is a bit easier to see where exactly the storm is relative to PR, because of the transparency overlay. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 18:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

WP:WPTC/IMG recommends "High-resolution true-color visible imagery" over "Infrared imagery overlaid on a true-color basemap". The TCR does not have arbitrary values for File:Maria 2017-09-19 2115Z.jpg because the image was taken at an asynoptic point. However, NOAA's IBTrACS lists maximum sustained winds at about 148 knots (170 mph) around 2017-09-19 21:00:00 UTC, 15 minutes before File:Maria 2017-09-19 2115Z.jpg was taken, when the storm was a Category 5 hurricane. Both images obscure Puerto Rico and other landmasses because they were completely covered by clouds at both points in time. If neither image is ideal for the infobox, any true-color image of Hurricane Maria as a Category 5 hurricane would be suitable. I have no preference for a specific image. FourNoddlers (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, File:Maria 2017-09-20 0238Z (Coastline-less).jpg is false-colored because it captured only the temperature radiated from the storm rather than the visible light reflected. There are many true-color images of Hurricane Maria as a Category 5 hurricane, so the lead image does not have to be at peak intensity. FourNoddlers (talk) 22:57, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Almost always the lead image is at peak intensity, it would be misleading to do otherwise and the guideline’s first point specifically says this should be the case. It gives a false impression of how strong it really is otherwise. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not what WP:WPTC/IMG states. What it does say is "A nighttime image is not only used for if a storm peaks at nighttime and can be a last resort if the visible images do not clearly represent the storm". Visible images not taken at peak intensity don't make them bad representations, as that would defeat the purpose of that statement. The visual differences between a 160 mph and 175 mph storm are subtle and undetectable to most readers, and using a false-color image just because the maximum sustained winds were higher is unrepresentative of the expectations of casual readers and disregards the principles of WP:WPTC/IMG. FourNoddlers (talk) 03:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't want to revert back because it's such a stupid edit war, but I believe the previous version (File:Maria_2017-09-20_0238Z_(Coastline-less).jpg) was better, and we should have the image on the 20th. The current version (File:Maria_2017-09-19_2115Z.jpg) is on the 19th, which isn't ideal when the article says the peak is on the 20th, and also the sun is setting. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts. I’m really trying not to drag it out into conflict like in years prior because I am too tired for that. And as noted above a nighttime visible image (like Eta’s) is impossible because of the lack of captures and the only one was as it was already weakening below Cat 5. MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 21:19, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

+1 here, the previous image is much better even if it isn't true color. WP:WPTC/IMG doesn't need to be interpreted that stringently. HurricaneZeta^C 23:23, 6 December 2025 (UTC)