Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides

Number of Deaths (As of August 1)

The number of deaths keeps getting changed to 270+, but there is no reference to this in a single reliable source. At this time, all reports are stating deaths in the rough range of 150. I understand this is likely to change as search and rescue efforts continue, but right now, its inaccurate and unverifiable to say 270+ deaths. @Pachu Kannan:, the source you keep referencing doesn't mention anything about 270+, even after going through the more recent live updates. Where specifically are you seeing this referenced? Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Atleast two sources confirm as of now,https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kochi/kerala-wayanad-landslides-live-updates-kerala-rain-chooralmala-rescue-death-count-kerala-rain/liveblog/112181683.cms

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/07/31/wayanad-landslide-mundakkai-chooralmala-search-rescue-death-toll-live.html.

So, death toll will be mentioned as 276. Golem469 (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the links. The previous manorama link cited in the article did not say 276 anywhere so it was confusing when that kept being referenced, but the updated link you shared helps resolve. I missed the TOI live updates, so thanks for sharing that as well. Schwinnspeed (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Please read https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/07/30/wayand-landslide-kerala-rain-live.html. It mentions latest death toll at the time of this edit as 282. Pachu Kannan (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Unwanted edits are being added

a user @Chin_pin_choo is adding below text again and again in the article. It looks like a get command to something, No such info should be added on Wiki page. I have removed this information for like 2-5 times already, but the user bring it back again and again. Maps & Location [Wayanad Landslide map overview] get [wayanad mundakai map satellite location] using Google maps [wayanad satellite view tutorial] Chin pin choo (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Webcomwiki What exactly are you trying to achieve ? Chin pin choo (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you think based on the title? [to help people with direction and location details of effected areas] Webcomwiki (talk) 07:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

(just because i know these locations) Webcomwiki (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We already have coordinates in the infobox. What you are adding is not helpful. What website even are you referencing? Procyon117 (talk) 07:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The referencing website was the only one i found on google search (for location details). so i thought it will be helpful. Webcomwiki (talk) 07:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, Wikipedia is not the right medium help people in distress with direction and location details of effected areas. Where will they access Wikipedia at? Chin pin choo (talk) 07:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

never mind, just delete them. (i won't add it, i thought it will be helpful like.. getting navigation details from google search.) Webcomwiki (talk) 07:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Relevance of 2022 Study in Background section

Passage as of the current version[1]

A 2022 study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health on deforestation in Wayanad district showed that 62% of the green cover in the district disappeared between 1950 and 2018, while tea plantation cover rose by around 1800%, leaving less forest to keep muddy hills stable. In addition, Kerala's hilly regions…

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health covers all aspects of environmental health sciences and public health and not anything that directly covers subjects related to the causes of landslides, mudslides, mudflow etc. The paper itself which is available here[2] doesn't connects their study with the landslides. Paper's summary says The emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) have increased recently due to forest degradation. This research is an attempt to understand the direct and indirect impact of forest degradation on infectious disease outbreaks in a specific context of the Wayanad district in Kerala, India. The study was done in two parts. In the first part, land use and land cover change of the Wayanad district was analyzed for the period of 1950 to 2018. The result of the analysis shows that a significant amount of forest has been converted into agricultural and forest plantations over the time. The second part involves understanding the impact of plantations on the outbreak of EIDs. We have employed GIS tools, remote sensing data, extensive field work and disease data to discover the relationship between the LULCC and disease outbreak. It was found that cases of EIDs were high in those gram panchayats where forests were encroached by plantations. So it is clear that that study has no relevance here in this article and it's inclusion here is WP:SYNTHESIS any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources violating core Principles and guidelines of Wikipedia.

അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Whole Background" section is actually irrelevant to the article and must be removed. Chin pin choo (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Wherewithal as Column

An editor reverted it citing this in diff[3] . Meaning of wherewithal from Oxford[4] and Cambridge[5] dictionaries. The column means the amount calculated by those entities required for the accomplishment of their projects. money, things or skill that you need in order to be able to do something. They lacked the wherewithal to pay for the repairs. from Oxford and something such as money or a particular quality that is necessary in order to get or achieve something: I'd like to buy a bigger house, but I don't have the wherewithal from Cambridge. These entries suffice the inclusion of a column for Wherewithal in this context. Therefore adding the column Wherewithal. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

As I explained multiple times on my talk page and in the edit summaries, the word "wherewithal" is not a synonym for cost. As a native English speaker I cannot explain this to you any more clearly. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Moreover, visually it look worse to have a column just for values in two rows. We must club the data in the already existing column and remove the column wherewithal like it was earlier. a big thumbs down to present format. Chin pin choo (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad : perhaps, you should make amends on 2018 Kerala floods, so that there is no confusion. People are actually referring to this wiki page and trying to make similar format here. Chin pin choo (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note — the outcome of this discussion would certainly hold weight there as well. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Chin pin choo explain how the meanings provided for the wherewithal by Oxford[6] and Cambridge[7] dictionaries cannot suffice the purpose of a column header named wherewithal whose purpose as said above, the amount calculated by those entities required for the accomplishment of their projects. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 01:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@Celjski Grad definition of wherewithal includes the money required for the completion of a particular purpose. Tell me wherewithal doesn't include money spent. അദ്വൈതൻ (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

A third opinion has been requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements. Celjski Grad (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello, There are already three people in this discussion so this isn't really a third opinion, but as I am here I will try to offer my thoughts. The article does not currently contain the word "wherewithal" so I will clarify mu understanding: should the table in the Rehabilitation section have a column called "wherewithal"? I'm not sure if the core of the third opinion request is whether there should be a separate column listing financial costs, or just whether such a column should be titled "wherewithal". Regarding the first question, it appears that the entries in this table are discussing what various organisations have donated or promised. For most rows, this has no financial amount. For the remaining two rows, it seems that the pledge is for a number of houses or an educational programme, with the financial amount provided as additional detail (although I'm afraid I can't find discussion of the educational project in reference . I therefore feel that adding the costs in brackets as they are at present is a clearer reflection of what has been promised/given. Regarding the word wherewithal. As in both the dictionary examples above, when used to discuss money, I believe it always has a meaning similar to "enough to achieve an objective". One has the wherewithal or one does not have the wherewithal, but you can't have $100,000 of wherewithal, so I have to agree that wherewithal is not an appropriate column title. Amount is used in all other tables in the article, so if the column were to be added, amount would seem to be the most reasonable title. Mgp28 (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to add, I copied the reference above from the article, but the title that it links to is "Wayanad landslides: 133 dead, 481 saved, at least 98 still missing", not "Munnar Catering College", so that reference might need to be updated. Mgp28 (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Chin pin choo (talk) 12:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Mgp28. The original issue pertained to the use of wherewithal as a direct synonym for money in the column title, the question around whether the column should exist at all became a secondary issue.

Thank you very much for weighing in on both issues. Celjski Grad (talk) 13:03, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Modest Contributions

@Tmanthara : Everyone's contribution is equally important when it comes to donations, but how and where to find reliable source of information about such details. General statements like The huge donations are attributed to the generous contributions of the public including the migrant workers and children who donated their modest savings., can't be backed by any source unless we have access to CMDRF itself. Hence we believe only notable contributors should be included in Wikipedia. Chin pin choo (talk) 10:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

https://www.thenewsminute.com/kerala/wayanad-landslides-keralas-migrant-workers-donate-a-days-wages-to-cm-relief-fund

I think we can use this as an reliable source for migrant workers.

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/08/02/school-students-donate-to-cmdrf-for-helping-landslide-affected-people-of-wayanad.html

This we can use as a reference for Children’s contribution Tmanthara (talk) 12:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Done Chin pin choo (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Why user Swarleystinson88 is changing the data chronologically???

Seems like team Prabhas want his name to be at number one, because he has offered the highest. hence they are changing the data in Civil Society table chronologically again and again. which actually makes no sense what soever. Data in the table is in FiFO order, as soon as we are getting info, we are putting it in the table. So please stop changing it in chronologically, rather use SORTING feature available in the header.

About Sukesh's contribution, All the data shown in the table are just "offers", no one can verify, whose offer was accepted by state gov and whose not, unless we have excess to CMDRF portal. So we do not care if gov has accepted the offer or not at the moment. Going by @Swarleystinson88's logic half of people have just announced the offere. Even there is no evidence if Prabhas's offer was accepted by the gov. Is there?

@Celjski Grad : can the article be protected from unwanted changes again? Chin pin choo (talk) 16:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree that the reader can sort the table however they want. Trying to maintain a particular order just adds more work for whoever adds the next entry, as opposed to just adding to the end. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

See Sukesh is a convicted conman.He is in jail for fraud and cheating.The word conman here is very significant.I hope you understand the irony.😂Having said that even a convicted conman can also contribute.But other people are credible people , mostly celebrities, whose credibility will be at stake if they don’t pay what they have said they will pay.But in sukesh’s case he has lost all his credibility.No one will care if he didn’t pay.I feel it’s safe to add Sukesh’s name after CM announce his contribution in a press conference or press statement. Inclusion of Sukesh name will be like white washing a criminal.

About order, even a contribution of one rupee is valuable .So there is no need for any particular order. Tmanthara (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on sourced information, not subjective trustworthiness of a subject. And no, a one rupee donation is not valuable nor notable. In fact all of the small donations should be removed and some sort of limit imposed. Celjski Grad (talk) 17:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tmanthara Going by the logic of someone being criminal, if we check ECI's site, almost every politician in the table would have 10s of criminal charge or cases running against them (especially the CM of Kerala). So Criminality of the donor carries no merit here. Chin pin choo (talk) 18:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

My doubt is his authenticity and credibility. Tmanthara (talk) 18:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreeing on donation limit in the table, but there are some cases, which are so interesting irrespective of the donation amount that we should mention them separately (see Other noteworthy contributions section). Chin pin choo (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Fine agreed.But I have a doubt.There are two sources of information in this case. One coming from the the person who pledges a certain amount.Other coming from government officially confirming this pledge.If there is a conflit of information which will be considered more authentic?

In every other case we have the same data from both the sources.But in Mr.Sukesh's case there is only pledge from him.Government is yet to issue any statements.All I am saying is we will wait for government confirmation and add it.Government have confirmed it in every other fund pledges.If case of Sukesh is authentic government will confirm it. @Celjski Grad Tmanthara (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see government confirmation of any of the donation pledges I looked at. All of them are reporting what the donor has announced. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the days CM will be holding a press conference.He will confirming the donation pledges then.Also there will be an official press release from CM office everyday.This is publicly available in official WhatsApp channel of the CM.There is no name of Sukesh in any of the press statements or in the press conference he did.@Celjski Grad Tmanthara (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS. Our job is to use reported sources which presumably makes the donations notable. The other option is to use the CM press release but then at that point we are simply repeating unfiltered information with no context. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay Tmanthara (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

However, I do accept that Sukesh’s case is different as he is the only one who reports that he wants to donate it, and is waiting for government acceptance. So perhaps we can add (proposed) to his amount and adjust it later based on news. Celjski Grad (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, may be we can do that. Tmanthara (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swarleystinson88 Please stop making unwanted changes. chronology makes so sense. Chin pin choo (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Swarleystinson88 Chin pin choo (talk) 04:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I am arranging all the necessary data in tables chronologically one by one. Unfortunately, it is getting reverted before I can change the other. Having the table in chronological order is more comprehensive. It is also convenient while adding new data, you just have to use "insert above" or "insert below". Please, share if you think otherwise. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swarleystinson88 People have already shared their views against it. read the whole discussion. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Any chronological change done in the wiki page will be reverted. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

What is the reason for it? Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swarleystinson88 First it is too much work for every new entry, Second sorting the data provides the solution. so chronological order is not needed. Please stop playing Team Prabhas on wiki. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Before you accuse randomly like this is some social media platform. Why don’t you provide more rational reason. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wiki is NOT social MEDIA whatsoever. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. It needs a certain structure. One cannot make data incomprehensible because it is inconvenient. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

it is structured. FiFO it is. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The only reason I observe is inconvenience while adding but that table with no chronology is more inconvenient while users read it. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

if it is inconvenient to you please stop adding it. We are here to do it. Simple. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open-source platform. What do you mean "we are here to do it". Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swarleystinson88 You are the only one person want it chronologically. Others are against it. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not about "for it" or "against it". It needs some structure. If you have a rational reason as to why something is not necessary except it being inconvenient, then I am all ears. There are users who can arrange data chronologically from time to time even if one adds the data at the bottom of the table or at a wrong place. Sorting is active on several other pages as well. The table must be comprehensive for the viewers. Please, go ahead if you can provide a structure to it. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comprehension about who gave more money or who gave less? Seriously, this is your argument?

It is just a donation, chronology makes no sense. Period. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

This is not about bias or subjective outlook. It is about the structure of data. List of natural disasters by death toll has a certain order. It is not about being insensitive towards anyone but the platform is to provide information and Wiki editors are to structure that information. The table has to be structured either using date or amount donated. In the name of "it is just information", one cannot randomly segregate that information right. Your argument is subjective. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

So we are comparing deaths and donations alike? your argument just died painfully. Sorry. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

How about chronology of donation by dates, not by amount?

Now, go and figure out who donated when and what time.

Amount just can't be the criterion of chronology . Chin pin choo (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

moreover, the word chronology itself means by date/time, not amount. So whatever you are trying to achieve held no merit. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

as per wikipedia, Chronology is the science of arranging events in their order of occurrence in time. .

Means, data is already in Chronological order and that is FiFO order. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Not comparing, deaths and donations. Perhaps, you don’t understand the context or you just want to find convenience to win an argument. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not about winning the argument, it is about Team Prabhas trying to take advantage of donation given to victims. If Prabhas wanted to be number -1 then he should have donated first. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you randomly want to accuse and whine, go ahead. You can accuse me, at least respect people who donated, instead of ridiculing them. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

this is exactly my argument. Donor of Rs.50K has same respect as of donor of Rs.2Cr. then why donor of Rs.2Cr has to be at number -1? Chin pin choo (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It is not about number 1 or whatever. It was about arranging data in a way that viewers could understand easily. Also if you had the point of FIFO & chronology, you could have said that initially instead of giving ridiculous reason of inconvenience while adding data. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 06:01, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Swarleystinson88 go back and read the very first sentence of this discussion. I rest my case here. Chin pin choo (talk) 06:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I meant when you reverted my edit. You could have just said that. This could have been avoided. Swarleystinson88 (talk) 06:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

About death toll

Isn't it better to put official death toll for now?I know most of the credible newspapers have put death toll to be above 400 and there is no need to doubt it.But isn't it more appropriate to put official data than unofficial one?Death toll is pakka gonna increase from official counts after DNA results.

Read this article:

https://www.onmanorama.com/news/kerala/2024/08/08/wayanad-landslides-cm-says-death-toll-to-be-confirmed-only-after-dna-results.html Tmanthara (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Tmanthara It's official data only. 230 dead bodies +197 body parts= 427 we already have it in the tooltip at every place. Check notes in the bottom of the article. Chin pin choo (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly my point.See We have 197 body parts, not bodies.In this 197, there could be the body parts of same person.This will reduce death toll.Meaning when government compares the DNA result of all the 197, if DNA results of some parts are same they will be belonging to one person.So isn’t it better to put 230 for now and then put the official death toll once the DNA tests are done?@Chin pin choo Tmanthara (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Trivial tables

Some sections of this article consist of tables filled with indiscriminate information, such as resource allocation, monetary aid, and rehabilitation efforts. This violates WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The content in these tables is more trivial than encyclopaedic and may also reduce readability. Additionally, the excessive use of external links within the tables goes against the guidelines set by WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELLIST. While notability is not necessarily required for the content of these tables, it would be better to trim the information and present it in prose form. We should focus on including only notable entities to prevent the section from becoming an indiscriminate list of donors. VK wiki100 06:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, but we would like to contest the argument that data is trivial than encyclopaedic or indiscriminate.

Please read above "closed" discussion. It was discussed and decided that only donors with significant amounts would be included in the article, Hence information is neither indiscriminate nor trivial rather it very selective and acknowledged by the local government hence it is verifiable. Earlier data was in prose form which made the article way too longer hence it was decided to move such information in tabular form to enhance the readability. Even if we go back to prose form, then number of links more or less would remain the same. So don't think it won't make any impact.

To reduce the length of the article, we have auto-collapsed the tables now, so that the article won't look longer. Chin pin choo (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

My argument is that these lists include entities that are not notable to the general reader. Why would a reader be interested in a local organization making a donation? This undermines the purpose of an encyclopaedia. Wikipedia is not a database meant to document every single donation. Just because a donation is recognized by the government doesn't mean the donors are notable enough to be included in the table. Regarding the prose, you can refer to the article on the 2010 Haiti earthquake. It covers all humanitarian aid efforts in a narrative format and includes a list of donations, but only from notable entities. While collapsing the list may be acceptable, I believe that the list should not include every donation and that external links should be removed, as they clearly violate WP:ELLIST. Additionally, the references' titles need to be corrected to reflect the original titles of the cited websites. VK wiki100 05:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Statement : these lists include entities that are not notable to the general reader.

Answer: Most of the entries have their own wiki pages and come from most respectable part of Kerala's society. Known for mobilizing the general public. Perhaps, it won't be easy to understand Kerala society while being from outside Kerala.

------

Statement: Wikipedia is not a database meant to document every single donation.

Answer: Out of 7860 donations to CMDRF (as per Gov of Kerala mentioned in 11 July press conference), we have only included 41 entries in Corporate and NGOs, 41 entries in Civil society, totally 82 only, which makes it roughly ~~1% of total donors making the major chunk of the total donations received by CMDRF and that's make us not being indiscriminate.

---------

Statement: 2010 Haiti earthquake covers all humanitarian aid efforts in a narrative format.

Answer: Are you really suggesting, all the humanitarian aid efforts made to Haiti is covered in 4 sentences? Why are we even comparing two different wiki pages? Is there any rule on Wikipedia that all the page should follow same format? Is there no wiki page has any table?

--------

All the objections that are being made here seem just an opinion rather a genuine issue. However, we may think to have a separate wiki page to include "Major donation only", and then provide a link on main "2024 Wayanad Landslides" wiki page, Chin pin choo (talk) 06:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Readability is a genuine concern, regardless of whether the entries are 82 or more. While you may be right in suggesting that most of the entries have their own Wikipedia pages, what should the threshold be for donations? Is it based on the amount? If so, why does it matter whether they have Wikipedia pages? Since you've included entries that don't have Wikipedia pages, what criteria did you use to select these specific ones out of the 7,860 donations? If you're considering coverage in WP:RS, how many of the listed items qualify? Does a single mention in a newspaper count? Additionally, while it's not necessary for every article to be uniform, I was highlighting how that particular article comprehensively covered the aid section, with the list of donations included in a separate article. Creating a separate article here might not be appropriate. I believe we need to reach a consensus on which entries should be included or excluded from this article. VK wiki100 06:42, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Ex -Chief minister of Kerala A. K. Antony made the least donation of Rs. 50,000 in the table. Since he is "notable enough" person. Hence we had to keep our threshold for donation to Rs. 50,000 for individuals, though threshold for Corporate is Rs. 1,00,000.

Also, We have removed all the external links from all the table. Chin pin choo (talk) 06:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Totally disagreeing to "we need to reach a consensus on which entries should be included or excluded from this article."

Who will decide whether donor is notable and capable enough to mobilize more donation from public in the "South"?

Someone who never have visited Kerala or Do NOT understand public mentality or Kerala society at large, can not decide. Chin pin choo (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedians will decide. We need to work within the guidelines established by the Wikipedia community. We can use WP:RFC or WP:3O to resolve this. If you are against building a consensus among contributors, that is a very serious and problematic issue in my opinion. VK wiki100 07:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

All I am saying that the contributor should understand the subject, they are building the article about.

Please invoke WP:RFC. Chin pin choo (talk) 07:12, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My proposal is to include only those entities with significant coverage in reliable sources, these can be local Kerala newspapers and news portals. This way, it would not be an issue if I have knowledge about the Kerala society or not. We can also consider including entities generally recognized as notable, such as celebrities, politicians, and certain NGOs. I appreciate that you've converted the relief efforts section from a table into prose. You can suggest what you believe is appropriate. If there's still no consensus, we can first seek a third opinion from another editor, and then decide whether a request for comment is needed. VK wiki100 05:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Only those entities with significant coverage in reliable sources were actually included (see the reference columns), We do not manufacture information and present it as facts. To achieve 100% accuracy, we may need direct access to CMDRF database, which state of Kerala is not providing to anyone. Hence the High court of Kerala has opened a Suo moto case. And again, people who can't even understand local language, or understand local dynamics of Kerala's society can't be the best judge of which celebrities, politicians, or NGOs should "generally recognized" as notable. Hence the best way is to put a threshold limit on donation amount. Which is RS.50,000 for individuals and Rs.1,00,000 for Corporate / NGOs.

I am again saying the whole facade that is being created here is a your personal opinion rather than a real issue.

Please invoke WP:3O. Chin pin choo (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the sources are from Onmanorama. I'm not sure how that establishes significant coverage, but I understand the threshold limit. I think it's acceptable to use local sources. One concern with relying on significant coverage is that many entries are only covered by local sources, which could result in the removal of most entries. I understand the concern about my local knowledge, and I think you can proceed with using local sources. Lastly, you're making a substantial contribution to this article, which is great. With a few more improvements, you might consider pushing it towards GA status. VK wiki100 06:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Onmanorama is a 26 years old English version of Malayala Manorama, another 136 years old malayali news paper in India. It is well regarded in the state of Kerala and carries equal status and respect as the newspaper Times of India in the northern states. These newspapers have won, many national and international awards in area of print media and publication. So questioning their credibility by saying "I'm not sure how that establishes significant coverage" proves my point that understanding of the subject is utmost important to write an article about it.

Now, coming to your "significant coverage", total 83 entries verified by 23 international, national as well as regional news papers namely Asianet News, Onmanorama, The Hindu, Khaleej Times, News18, Kerala Kaumudi, 24 news, Indiaeducationdiary, Indiansinkuwait, The Hans India, Telegraph India, BarAndBench, The Print, Hindustan Times, Filmi Beat, Indian Express, Siasat, Mathrubhumi, Times Of India, 123telugu, Economic Times, Daijiworld, Heraldgoa, If this is sufficient, then I am sure what would satisfy your misunderstanding.

Just a side note, Most of so called "National" newspaper in India are not interested in covering non-Hindi speaking states. Ask yourself, when did you last hear any news from the state of Odisha or Tripura? if your answer is either long back or never, then I would rest my case without any further argument. Chin pin choo (talk) 06:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying Onmanorama isn't credible. By "significant coverage," I meant that the news should be covered by multiple sources. However, I understand that many national newspapers don't focus on Kerala news. My concern regarding "significant coverage" is that if, for example, I made a donation for landslide relief and got it published in a Hindi daily, would that make it notable enough for inclusion in the article? No, absolutely not. Significant coverage across several news sources ensures that the donation isn't trivial. However, I also understand that many events are only covered by local newspapers. If we insist on significant coverage, we might end up removing most of the entries. That's why I'm agreeing with you on keeping these entries. PS- 123telugu, filmibeat is considered generally unreliable by WP:ICTFSOURCES. VK wiki100 06:52, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

123telugu and filmibeats have been replaced with better references now.

One need to understand how journalism works, Most of the national newspapers like The Hindu and Hindustan Times take bytes from local newspaper like 123telugu and filmibeats, this is called Frankenstein journalism. Often these reliable newspapers do not care to fact check. Irony is 123telugu and filmibeats are considered as non-reliable but The Hindu and Hindustan Times are considered reliable. Chin pin choo (talk) 07:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

You're right about that. This has been discussed many times on Wikipedia. I recall a discussion in WP:ICTF where Sacnilk was considered an unreliable source for box office data, even though many newspapers use Sacnilk as a reference. Most of the time, we tend to disregard newspapers that rely on these unreliable references. However, we can't dismiss them entirely because these newspapers often have their own correspondents for news reporting, which are considered reliable. Thanks for having this discussion. VK wiki100 07:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

On a lighter note, You may argue how US$600 is a "significant amount" mentioned in the table?

So you must always consider Rupees equivalent, as donor and recipient both are Indian, transacting in India. And amount Rs.50,000 (US$ 600) is never considered trivial in India. especially, when one has to donate it. 103.164.24.190 (talk) 20:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Comprehension about number of fatalities

Multiple sources have been reporting multiple data for number of death in the incident. Ideally, it should be confirmed deaths + body parts found + missing people. As after17 days, chance of finding someone alive is next to null. But for now, we are referring to central government's data from daily report. that is Confirmed deaths + body parts found. We understand the body part could be of same person. it would reduce the number up to certain extent, but again, if we also consider adding the missing person and we will reach more or less same number.

The issue with generalization of data, is which one to choose? we have lower ("over 400") and upper ("over 450") limits both. Chin pin choo (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

@Schwinnspeed & @Pachu Kannan : Any thought? Chin pin choo (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The central government's report says Human Live Loss --> 231 dead and recovered 212 body parts, Even they believe 212 body parts to be separate one until proved otherwise. Chin pin choo (talk) 18:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I understand a little more now that you are bringing the missing person rationale in - you are right that when its all accounted for, including missing persons, it is likely to net about the same even if you account for multiple body parts for one person. Your rationale and calculation makes sense. But my point is on Wikipedia this is all considered WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Until we get the DNA reports, I feel we should use what is currently cited in RS, I'm even comfortable with the upper limit (450+), but I am not seeing an RS that states that (I may be missing something) If we want to use the central govt report, we should spell out 231 dead and 212 recovered body parts, as per the source. I just think we are making a big leap and should keep it general right now until we know more Schwinnspeed (talk) 19:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Text changed to either like over 420 or 420+ as per https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/wayanad-landslides-fire-force-ndrf-volunteers-continue-search-operations-124080900226_1.html Post-mortems have been conducted on 420 bodies, 178 bodies have been handed over to relatives, and 233 burials have taken place Chin pin choo (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I hope, you would consider Business Standard reliable enough. Chin pin choo (talk) 19:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

It is a better decision to avoid violation of WP:NOR. Pachu Kannan (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I tend to suspect that the government of Kerala would ever declare exact number of deaths in the landslides. They may have inform the individual families about the DNA test results but aren't going to publicly announce the number to avoid social backlash.

Same thing was done during 2018 Kerala floods. 119.252.201.99 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The reference to 420 from Business Standard seems ok for now until we know more. If the CG doesn't publish the final deathcount then we can always put a statement saying that later. But its WP:OR to conclude that on our own right now. I think @Chin pin choo found a good solve for now. Schwinnspeed (talk) 20:45, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Chin pin choo (talk · contribs) 10:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TamilRoman (talk · contribs) 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this for good article status.

• The introduction of article should a little more than a paragraph.

• Reply:  Done more information has been added now in the introduction of the article. Chin pin choo (talk) 11:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• Aftermath section should be divided further into loss if human-life, Property and Animals.

• Reply:  Done Aftermath section has been divided into subsections. Chin pin choo (talk) 11:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

• UTC time should also be used in the infobox for international readers.

• Reply:  Done UTC time, won't be possible as time and timezone are two separate fields in the infobox. However, we have included it in the article. Chin pin choo (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

More or less the article is in good shape. Promoting it to GA. Congratulations!! TamilRoman (talk) 12:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

 Note: both the reviewer and nominator have been blocked for sockpuppetry. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by Launchballer talk 07:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

[[File:|140px|The drone visual of the landslide origin near Punjirimattom ]]

The drone visual of the landslide origin near Punjirimattom

• ... that more than 420 people were killed in 2024 Wayanad landslides in India, caused by 572 mm (22.5 in) downpour within just 48 hours, which was above monthly average 527 mm (20.7 in) in the area?

• Source: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/wayanad-landslides-fire-force-ndrf-volunteers-continue-search-operations-124080900226_1.html
• Source: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/wayanad-landslide-how-two-villages-vanished-overnight/article68506601.ece

• Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Chin pin choo (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Chin pin choo (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC).

• Unfortunately this article is ineligible for DYK, as it appeared on the Main Page as a bolded link in WP:ITN on 31 July 2024. CMD (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

2024 Wayanad landslides

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: The classic self-review. CMD (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

As outlined at WT:GAN#Review needs looking at, there are significant issues with this article. The GA review lasted less than two hours. It did not check the sources as required by WP:GAN/I#R3, which might have picked up numerous issues of close paraphrasing/plagiarism. The article itself is riddled with grammar and spelling errors and poor prose; it also contains unnecessary details in many sections. It thus fails several of the GA criteria.

Pinging those who commented at WT:GAN: Thebiguglyalien, Chipmunkdavis, Chaotic Enby ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Delist. Fails criteria 1a (many, many grammar errors), 1b (lead is way too short, also external links in body), 5 (very recent event, and the rescue operation is still current), and 6b (two galleries of dubious relevance). The long tables of individual donors also likely fail 1b (list incorporation) and 3b (unnecessary details). I can see a lot of other issues with the article (flag icons in prose, really?), but I am not sure whether those are actually GA requirements. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Article has been delisted to work on quality of the content. Chin pin choo (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

I've blocked the GAN nominator and reviewer, both as sockpuppets of Makks2010 based on behavioral evidence. DanCherek (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.