Talk:Cyclone Mahina

Plagiarism issue

This seems to be a direct plagiarism of http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/naturaldisasters/

The offending text was the intro which came from the first version of the article. I replaced it. Jdorje 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Terminology issue re Aborigine

The term Aboriginies has been replaced with Indigenous Australians. This seems to be a retrograde step. The source material states "Aborigines" which is a term widely used in Australia. If a reader finds the term unclear, they can click on the link. The term "Indigenous Australians" is not a term in widespread use in Australia. While I understand that the term "Aborigine" may be unclear, in this context it is hardly likely to be confusing.

Perhaps User:Jdorje can provide a reference to a Wikipedia policy on consistent naming of native peoples.

Image link

Why isn't the "contemporary painting"'s picture within this article? If it's contemporary (circa 1899) wouldn't it lie well outside the time frame of any possible copyright issues? Thegreatdr (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it was used in here the other week but HJ Mitchell deleted the picture as there was no licensing information. Regarding the copyright issue im gonna ping an Australian who deals with images and will a lot more about Australian copyright law than i do.Jason Rees (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I own the picture - it is early 1900's. I am NZ based. I put it in and it was removed. The pic copyright thing on Wikipedia is utterly baffling to me. Any help welcome --Glaw99 (talk) 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Owning the painting doesn't mean you own the copyright, however if you can tell us who painted it, when and where was it painted (not the subject which is the cyclone in QLD, Australia but the country it was painted in [UK, US, NZ, AU ect]). The more information (if there is some reliable online info on the painting, please link to it) you can give us, the better we can point to the correct license. Bidgee (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Todo

• [1]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cyclone Mahina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090515040445/http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/naturaldisasters/ to http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/naturaldisasters/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090316024315/http://www.ema.gov.au:80/ema/emadisasters.nsf/c85916e930b93d50ca256d050020cb1f/40e758f025b7a858ca256d3300057cd3?OpenDocument to http://www.ema.gov.au/ema/emadisasters.nsf/c85916e930b93d50ca256d050020cb1f/40e758f025b7a858ca256d3300057cd3?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pressures and "the worst cyclone"

I notice that there is an ongoing fiddling with the pressures which seems to be linked to the claim to being the "worst cyclone" in the South Hemisphere. For example, the article's lede makes this claim on the basis of an application to the WMO, but the citation for this application is a 2014 ABC webpage which says

"Townsend is part of a group of scientists and researchers from Queensland that has approached the World Meteorological Organisation to have the records amended."

"Another of those pushing for the change is James Cook University's Professor Jon Nott, who has been using field evidence and computer modelling to try to set the record straight."

but what was sounding like some kind of formal application in the article is now "an approach" and "pushing for change". Ian Townsend is not a scientist but an author of an fictional dramatisation (not knocking him, the book is a good read) but probably not quite in the same league as Prof Nott in terms of scientific knowledge. If we look at Nott, Townsend et al's 2014 paper ([14] for which full text is available), the conclusions are a bit inconclusive. "If Porter's barometric reading is correct, then Mahina's central pressure of 880 hPa could also be the lowest central pressure recorded historically in the Southern Hemisphere" being the final words. Is there any evidence that WMO has been formally asked to revise their records and, if so, being 4 years later, what was their response? I think we are getting into serious Original Research if we try to go beyond what Nott is saying in 2014. Nott is clearly credible as a scientist, he has used physical observations and computer modelling, he gives fairly clear explanations, but, at the end of the day, he does not possess a time machine to go back and observe the cyclone in person with the aid of modern equipment.

I suggest we put both values 880 and 914 in the infobox (if the infobox allows it, which I suspect it won't as it is doing conversions); if not, then put nothing in the infobox. In any case remove the claim to be the "lowest" from the infobox. I think the section on "Barometic pressure estimates" needs to be revised in relation to the current very definite claim "A study in 2014 found that the actual lowest pressure of the storm was around 880 hectopascals (26 inHg)" to "could have been as low as 880 hectopascals" to better reflect the "if-and-could" conclusions of [14]. The 2nd para in the lede should also back off making overly strong claims and simply summarise the revised section on Barometic pressure estimates by providing the BOM figure of 914 but note that there is other evidence suggests that it may have been as low as 880, in which case it would be the lowest ...". And drop any mention of the WMO unless someone can find a more compelling citation that the WMO did consider the issue and what they decided.

How does that sound? Kerry (talk) 07:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)