Talk:2021 European floods

Inclusion of the United Kingdom?

On the 13th of July there was widespread flooding in the U.K., the worst flooding in a single day for 10 years, perhaps include it under the location section? 82.21.156.252 (talk) 18:23, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Where was that exactly in the UK? Do you have a source? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:16, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

It seems it was mainly in London on Monday. Darren Bett has just explained on BBC News at Ten that it's all part of the same weather system, caused by a static Atlantic meridional overturning circulation. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done An embarrassingly large and well-written section has now been added. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I was about to suggest the opposite. The UK's flooding was more inconsequential here - "some tube stations got closed due to flash flooding" is a fairly common occurence here in London, and is not worthy of an article, and thus I wouldn't really consider it to be a major factor. Spa-Franks (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• Sunny in most of England, no flooding.Niterurea (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There was flash flooding in parts of Dorset - totals highest in a decade. Admittedly, not a serious as in Europe as no fatalities, which shows how much the system developed as it moved east. https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19435809.live-updates-crashes-a338-spur-road/ https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19435847.flooding-poole-heavy-rain-showers-area/ https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/19437653.large-levels-flooding-recorded-across-dorset/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/features/57819116

A section about UK. Seriously? In London a heavy storm rain stopped by flooding a few tube lines, Overground, etc (major travel disruption is not a remarkable event in London) My wife came home late, with shoes and trousers soaked, and my poor cat had to stay indoors. "most rainy day in 10 years..." that's why UK deserves a section in "2021 European floods"? This must be a joke. Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 21:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

A joke?? Those poor darlings. Battling down to Pret in those flimsy Chelsea tractors! Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just to say, the map in the infobox is quite misleading as it shows whole of UK as being affected. Not sure if it's technically possible to adjust this. Guess the same goes for Italy. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing

Cerberon-900, please stop changing the number of deaths in individual places without providing a source. Contentious statements require a source. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 14:01, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Rail transport

Railtech has a story about disruption to rail services, including a derailment in Belgium caused by the flooding. There are other stories linked from that article. Mjroots (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Trier is in Germany, not Luxembourg

The article states "In Luxembourg, 2,000 people were evacuated from their homes in Trier...", but Trier is in Germany, close to the border with Luxembourg. —Mahāgaja · talk 08:15, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But sentence is: "In Luxembourg, 2,000 people were evacuated from their homes in Trier, Echternach and Rosport." So the total of 2,000 is across all three, the last two of which are in Luxembourg. Obviously when large rivers which form national boundaries overflow, the damage occurs to both bordering countries. Will need a slight re-write. Martinevans123 (talk)

Probably does need clarifying though e.g. "2,000 people were evacuated from their homes in Trier, Germany, and Echternach and Rosport in Luxembourg" (I'm sure there's a slightly neater wording). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's perfectly valid on it's own, but we've split up into sections by nation? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:18, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

More importantly, I don't see that info in the source given. Where does this say anything about Trier? Where does it give the exact number of "2000" – it's not in this source either, as far as I can tell. I just can't find it. Unless someone can clarify where this info is coming from, the sentence needs to be rewritten entirely. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

8876y6t tre! 212.25.69.10 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

In Luxembourg, tourists had to evacuate camping sites around small towns. In Rosport, where about 2000 people live, 6 of the tourists in the camping site had to leave. also some residents had their homes flooded as well and had to find shelter. Some had to be rescued by boats and dinghies, with almost no time to pack their things, can you believe it? So that's another section for another destroyed country. Is this a race to quickly include countries in the list of widespread destruction? Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Climate change

Nicole van Lipzig, a geographer at the research university KU Leuven said the flooding was the result of ongoing climate change and that a similar meteorological event would not have happened on such a scale 100 years ago. Why should we publisher some person's view on it- the source is clearly not a medical reliable source? If it was someone at the top of the field, then maybe it should be added, but this just seems WP:UNDUE to be posting the remarks of some seemingly random person. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

What does medical sources have to do with any of this? In any case, I don't agree that it would have to be someone from the top of the field for it to be due weight. What in this is controversial? Yakikaki (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Why are we quoting someone who's not notable? If climate change is an important cause to this, then surely someone more notable will have commented on it. I don't think we need to include the views of random people on this, especially when they're just stating the obvious. If they're the only person to have made the connection in reliable sources, then I don't see it as vitally important for this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, we can remove it. My idea was that it's a scientist from the region, commenting on how this specific incident is related to the bigger picture, and so I thought that could add an interesting perspective. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently. But if you think it's strange, I'm not going to be obnoxious about it. Yakikaki (talk) 13:38, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

• It's a huge contradiction anyways. Previous paragraph says, "According to the German weather service, some of the affected regions have not seen rainfall of this magnitude in over 100 years," and then Lipzig says, "a similar meteorological event would not have happened on such a scale 100 years ago". They can't both be right, and I'm more inclined to believe the weather service as they probably have actual data to back themselves up   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see the contradiction because the former states that in at least 100 years prior there haven’t been such rainfall with such intensity. So it also could be 150 or 200 prior. The later states exactly 100 years so it could be right. Melvinvk (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

There's now a new, completely unsourced section about the connection to climate change now. It's even worse IMO, should either be rewritten or removed. Yakikaki (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't even get what that section is trying to say atm. That the events (floods in Europe and Heatwave in America) are related? That they are just in chronological order? Some sources are needed, desperately. --LordPeterII (talk) 21:17, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it- it fails WP:VERIFY, and seems pointless and irrelevant, as it's trying to join things that are not connected in reliable sources. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The section on Global Climate Change is back, about 2 hours later is valid because references to some The Guardian article and a couple of "told you so" quotes validate it? If every natural disaster is proven 24 hours later to be climate change related by science and ipso facto published by press, one can start to fear there's some kind of blind acceptance of the problem, the diagnostic and the solution. Can somebody clarify how it's possible to assert this so quickly? Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 02:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree, just because one or two people say it's "caused by climate change", that doesn't mean it's been proved. Also, This event of particular intensity follows unprecedented heat waves in the Pacific Northwest and Northern Europe looks to be WP:SYNTH by implying all three are linked, when none of the sources listed make that link. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's climate changes and the consequences of these changes. Nobody writes about this in press, but I'll say just the fact. I live in Moscow, Russia in Eastern Europe and we have since the mid of June very hot weather, above to +35°C in some days. And we have practically no rain for the last 3 weeks. I remember the 2010 heat wave, where we have temperatures up to +38-39°C. And I heard that floods were in Czech Republic and Poland due to cyclones, which couldn't break through the anticyclone in eastern Europe. Today it's the same situation like in 2010 but worser for Western Europe. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 10:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion here: We are not discussing our own opinions in this article. We do such things on Twitter and other social media. Here on Wikipedia, we report what WP:RS say about the event. And whether this article should state the floods are related to climate change depends on whether the media report it as such. The Guardian article is a good on in that regard, but I fail to see how the Italian sources draw an immediate connection between the American heat wave and the floods in Germany. Yes we all know they happened at a similar point in time, but a lot of things happen simultaneously. There needs to be some more explicit comparison drawn before we can state that here. If anyone can produce some more in-depth sources for this whole section, it would help.

So just a reminder, these are both not acceptable as arguments: Nobody writes about this in press, but I'll say just the fact. & Agree, just because one or two people say it's "caused by climate change", that doesn't mean it's been proved. See also WP:NOTTRUTH. --LordPeterII (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Just because in the last few years you have seen heat waves at your place that proves this is another global climate change disaster? If somebody in other region tells me he is very happy about the weather and haven't seen flooding in his lifetime, while his parents suffered cyclones and floods, then I can use that as an argument that Co2 is neutral and climate change is just somebody being more lucky than others? Are we even living a specially severe age of weather related related disasters? there's data suggesting is just the opposite and it doesn't prove global warning is not happening, but news and arguments must be validated, and takes, at least, some time. I thought this was an Encyclopedia, not a Clickbait news agency. I really still don't get how the Climate Section in this entry is already accepted. Lavidavi00 (talk) 12:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have expanded the section. I removed the Italian sources with some more in-depth English ones, and added several scientists that are discussing the connection. Because sources are there, and thus we can actually discuss the question. Please take a moment to look at the section, and say if we can remove the "disputed" template. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I have also expanded the section with a variety of high-quality sources. Let's move on. I have removed the tag. JBchrch talk 14:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @JBchrch, I agree the section is looking good now and the tag is definitely no longer needed. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I still think blaming this on Climate Change is premature. If you know anything about river management you know there are a lot of things at play, it's not just about the amount of rain that falls. If Climate Change is to blame, why was the St Mary Magdalene Flood of 1342 so much bigger than this one? Floods are characterised as 1 in [insert time period here] events. This may have been a 1 in 1000 year flood - why involve CLimate Change with next to no consideration of anything else - like building on flood plains. Weirs, and waterway management. Rivers don't like to be held back - all rivers flood. And humans like living on flood plains because they are flat and fertile. I'm suspicious when people immediately blame Climate Change for a weather event - and rest assured, a lot of insurers will be looking very closely at what caused this and how they will weight their future insurance premiums. Which is probably why I see a lot ofuninformed comments on here, not the real experts: the hydrologists and meteorologists.27.33.200.168 (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)An old anonymous hack who has been watching the climate change debate for 30 years now and has a doctorate and some peer reviewed publications.

Would make a very catchy Username? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I actually agree with IP editor above that there are multiple causes at play here. While I am convinced that climate change played a role (and more importantly, WP:RS are), I feel like giving "climate change" as the sole cause in the infobox is not accurate. In Germany, the discussion has just started on why the floods were so devastating. I think it might need some more time to get evaluated by experts, but there are voices that question the regions' preparedness. Because you can prepare, to a degree, for extreme weather. Flood management is a thing, and it might not have been done properly in some areas. Anyway, that's something for later once sources become available; I will be watching out for them. Climate change as a contributing factor, however, can't be denied: It's obviously not directly causing this particular flood, but it makes event such as these more likely to occur. To combat and avoid such disasters in the future, we will need to address both climate change and the more technical things – like having sufficient detention basins. --LordPeterII (talk) 18:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I added some of the sources that are now in the infobox, in support of the "cause: Climate change" parameter, which were lifted from the § Connection to global climate change section. I think what we did a good job in this section expressing the fact that most people think that it is most probably connected to climate change. However, the format of the infobox expresses it as a certainty, which is not really what the sources cited say. Do we agree to remove that parameter? JBchrch talk 18:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree tbh, most sources say it is connected to climate change rather than caused by climate change. Jdcomix (talk) 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I concur. It's too early to name a definite cause, be it climate change or governmental failures. For now the info should be given in the article body with explanation, and the infobox can be updated once we have sources that explicitly call out causes. --LordPeterII (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Not only is early and there's not enough evidence. The continuous efforts to immediately include Climate Change as the reason gives anybody skeptical a reason to doubt more about how the Climate change is a political weapon more than a serious matter, and there's a high risk of wrongdoing. There's a risk of making things worse for environment and poorer countries (as use to happen with many projects pushed by governments and their lobbies). Extreme floods concentrated over a particular period oftime are by no means new occurrences in Central Europe. Same events were deemed a different way not so many years ago. Arguments cited in sources like "everything is connected" and "wave resonance" are at least subject of discussion. And how are those green pictures with satellite images related to this section?Lavidavi00 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

We are all good-faith editors attempting to summarize the reliable sources. So provide some sources yourself-really, I am happy to consider-, or risk being blocked for personal attacks. JBchrch talk 09:14, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Note: editor changed his comment after this comment. JBchrch talk 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"An image of the Meuse and Roer rivers on July 16 (left) and on July 18 (right) as captured by the Operational Land Imager (OLI) on Landsat 8 shows flooding along the rivers" How is that probing the relationship between the European floods 2021 event and the climate change?. Lavidavi00 (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Editors - you are doing an awesome job. You are why I love Wikipedia, and support it modestly. Anyway, I attached a link to a report from 2020 that considered the impact of climate change of flooding - it was a report about flood risk in Germany but it didn't last long that report states flood risk from climate change is increasing as well as giving an interesting timeline of recent (decadal) floods, and it cites peer reviewed literature. The biggest reason for toning down speculative work in a page like this is out of respect for the victims. Those affected will want answers which will come from the appropriate experts in due course. Unwarranted speculation at best just politicises the page, and at worst makes Wikipedia look captured by shrills. If Climate Science is done by reputable Climate Scientists, publishing in peer-reviewed papers, then off-the-cuff musing by them has no place here. Take a leaf out of aircraft accident investigation and let the Investigators do their job. At the very least, ensure you aren't laying all the blame for this flood at the feet of Climate Change. River catchments are complex, and especially so when the rivers cross multiple jurisdictions like here. 193.119.47.143 (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)AnonHack

Stay WP:CIVIL. No one is out to get you. I am going to reduce the size of the image since it's a bit too big, but you're not going to get anywhere by attacking editors. Argument, sources, consensus etc. JBchrch talk 09:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC) Note: editor changed his comment after this comment. JBchrch talk 10:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Noted, apologies, it wasn't my intention to attack people that works in good-faith. Reducing or increasing the size of an image is not the proof I think is missing here, so I understand that has nothing to do with my comment, that was ignored on grounds of WP:CIVIL ?. Edited previous comment to tone down and avoid anybody feeling personally attacked.Lavidavi00 (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Lavidavi00, the problem with points like Arguments cited in sources like "everything is connected" and "wave resonance" are at least subject of discussion is that we have no choice but to follow what the sources say. If you think that these sources misrepresent reality or that we give excessive WP:WEIGHT to them, you have to either (i) provide other, contradictory sources that make this point or (ii) prove that most other sources do not make these points. The problem with the 2002 source is that it does not directly address the 2021 floods like the current sources do: I accept that we can reasonably conclude from it that floods are a regular occurence, but unfortunately we cannot combine several sources of information to reach a conclusion that is not explicitly mentioned in the sources, so it would be better if you could provide sources that address the 2021 explicitly. In any event, I recognize that the image may give excessive WP:WEIGHT to the § Climate change section. Before taking action, however, I would just like to see what other editors think about that. JBchrch talk 10:58, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree climate change shouldn't be in the infobox. Current climate change attribution science typically answers the question: 'how much worse did climate change make it', rather than 'was it caused by climate change'. I do wonder whether we're giving too much prominence to the jet stream, whose connection to climate change is not a settled matter scientifically. Extreme rainfall & CC is, and should probably get more space relatively. FemkeMilene (talk) 10:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank everybody for your replies and patience. I lose it sometimes but my honest intention is to point out that: the connection of 2021 European flooding and climate change is done in a bit of a rush. I am not used to see a meteorological event so accurately explained so quickly. The main definition of "climate" is included as example in the Chaos_theory I would understand more that a conclusion that the 2002 European_floods are climate change related. But maybe I should not discuss this here, but somewhere else, again apologies and thanks for your patience. Lavidavi00 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who is keeping this discussion civil. This is a current event and thus, by its very nature, this article is in constant flux. I am personally not surprised that a lot of (very reputable) sources published something on climate change, since it is a major point in discussions around the world right now. I am also not surprised that news about floods from 20+ years ago do not concern themselves with climate change much – for much the same reason, because climate change wasn't a big thing back then. JBchrch has given some excellent explanation above on the issues we face as Wikipedians, who are not free to write just about anything (and for good reason). I think by removing climate change as an explicit "cause" from the infobox and reducing the size of the image (the NASA text accompanying it explicitly talks about a connection to global warming being evaluated, so I think it is okay to sit there; and anyway I do not know where it would fit elsewhere in the article) we have found a good compromise on the WP:WEIGHT given to it. But again, anyone is free to provide their opinion, backed up by (up to date) sources; then we might have to adjust again.

@Femkemilene: I personally have no background in any field related to climate research, and was merely writing some prose based on the sources I found. If you believe the jet stream is given undue weight, feel free to adjust the section (though I tried to make it clear that it's some scientists' theory, and we only use it in connection with "might" in WP:Wikivoice). --LordPeterII (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we're not too far off from giving due weight. I'll try to find time to do this, but I'm a bit lost on the paragraph structure.. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Inclusion of Italy

How servere is the damage in Northern-Italy. The article references the country in the intro. But further down there is no further information about the situation. Secondly the infobox mentions 1 fatality but when I translate the article an uprooted tree hit a Indian citizen. So this was nog necessarily caused by water damage. Are there any other sources that can back this up. Melvinvk (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I did research on this issue and could only find articles talking about how Italy sent a rescue team to assist in Belgium to try to find missing people. See https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/europe-floods-search-missing-toll-tops-90-78878790 Jurisdicta (talk) 06:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Here more info: https://www.ilgiornaledivicenza.it/territori/arzignano/in-scooter-centra-una-pianta-caduta-per-il-maltempo-muore-46enne-1.8788475 --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Andorra and San Marino

Please, you should include these countries, could as well include Cerdeña, Corsica, Balearic Islands (one by one) and also the Canary Islands, don't forget they are in Europe as well. Sections explaining how many people had to use the umbrella, how many people was hit by how many rain drops, etc. Numbers, numbers always impress. Good night, I'll be back in the morning to see how is that going. I am surprised this entry doesn't specify deaths by region, how many people had to leave the tent o every camping, how many are "disappeared because mobile phone has no signal, etc. April_2015_Nepal_earthquake Francisco Fernandez Rodriguez (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Only if there's a decent amount of specific, relevant content for those countries. I assume you're being facetious though. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, please ignore my comment, was obviously a joke. Sorry about that. Won't do it anymore. I am happy if somebody can delete the section, not sure if I should do it? Lavidavi00 (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

1300 missing persons - Information is outdated

Not only I can confirm that for a short while, those numbers were raised/mentioned in the media because of broken mobile/telephone-infrastructure in a certain area. (Source: in german: by the spiegel (which is acknowledged by the english wikipedia). If you would like to the check the source for yourself you can do that with translation-addons. I am going to delete the mentioning of the missing persons and already have adressed the misinformation regarding the Mainpage In the news-headline. ----LennBr (talk) 14:10, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah good point; I already amended that in the article body so that it's clear that the failing mobile networks are mostly at fault. I think technically it's not wrong since these people are missing; but it's a problem since it gives the impression that they might all be dead, which is highly unlikely. Good call on removing that from the lede and main page. --LordPeterII (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It is interesting also how few sources seemed to include since the beginnig the officials words in full: In Rhineland-Palatinate’s district of Ahrweiler, officials had said about 1,300 people were missing on Friday – but added that the figure was “decreasing every hour”. Probably nothing to do with Sensationalism

I have updated based on this, which states that the exact number of missing persons is unknown, but at least 150 people were being searched for. So I believe it is save to say that 150 is a lower bound which has been reported. --LordPeterII (talk) 14:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

France

Hi. The infobox/lead mention France, but that's about it. Has there been any flooding as such in France? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I've removed France from the infobox. No objection to it being reinstated once there is a "France" section in the main body of the article. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Removed from the map as well. As above feel free to revert if there is a "France" section. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 18:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks both. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Austria

Flooding hit Salzburg, Austria today. More news will be forthcoming. It should soon be included in the map and article. 142.117.34.192 (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the request to include Austria in the map and article as the flooding is spreading and cited by reliable sources. See https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/bavaria-hit-by-floods-german-death-toll-climbs-156-2021-07-18/ Jurisdicta (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Videos that could be migrated

Here are a few videos that could be migrated to commons to illustrate the article:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3-d9WrSqgk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCiwV3uxmXE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hv7jli8Dq5U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85lpY3Dk-6I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcdPb_4vPl8

Victor Grigas (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Do they have a licence compatible with Commons- I can't see anywhere on those videos where they're released under a Creative Commons licence. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:11, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, they all do, click 'show more' and you'll see it. Victor Grigas (talk) 23:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more photos and some videos too: https://www.flickr.com/photos/pixelshowmeine/ Victor Grigas (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

• You can share them on Wikimedia upoad pages but only for auth suggests ! Vsehmogushiy2 (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Victorgrigas. I will try to upload some of them to Commons this week. JBchrch talk 15:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Poland?

Flash Floods in Nowy Sącz https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3biKtRcJORA Niterurea (talk) 19:44, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that we should keep this article to the floods caused by the area of low pressure named Bernd by FU Berlin, as that is the cut off low that caused the flooding.Jason Rees (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Greta Thunberg

Hi. In order not to add something controversial, I wish to read opinions on whether Greta Thunberg's comments are to be included in the climate change section or not. She's an activist but not a scientist. Thanks. CoryGlee (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Could you add some context about which comments you are referring to? Maybe even sources for them? 80.120.170.101 (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Map

I see the basic Europe map in the infobox has now gone. Was there any discussion around this? I guess the new "Areas affected, EU Emergency Response Coordination Centre (ERCC)" map may be too big/ too detailed to go in the box. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I think the map was better. This image doesn't make the most sense in the Infobox. If no one objects I might boldly add it back. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 10:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

And reverted. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 07:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Satellite photo Maas / Roer

This is about the "green image" in section "Connection to global climate change". The Landsat8 satellite photos now show the rivers Maas (from bottom) and Rhine (from top right). The source NASA website only shows a cutout at Roermond, where the Roer flows into the Maas. So either the title should be adjusted to Maas and Rhine, or the image should be cropped to show the ¿intended? image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmarade (talk • contribs)

Image to be used in infobox

After I was reverted by an IP for adding the map back, I hope to achieve consensus on the image in the infobox. Should it be:

• A: The map of countries affected, File:Map of areas affected by 2021 European floods.svg (which I have updated)
• B: An animated GIF of weather in Europe during the floods, File:Weather during 2021-07-08 to 2021-07-15 western europe.gif
• C: An image of the damage by floods in an area, such as File:Floods 16 July 2021, Belgium, Tilff 1.jpg

I personally prefer the map, however, I am interested in others' opinions on this. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 08:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• Option C I change my vote after being convinced by the MOS argument below. Though for quality reasons, I would prefer File:Geul-overstroming juli 2021 (55).jpg (this one was used on the main page as well) over the one suggested above. I personally prefer A as well, or alternatively B. I do not support C since that would give more weight to an individual country, and this was an "international" event. In any case, I would like to keep B somewhere in the article since it's a quality image. Together with File:Deadly Floods Surprise Europe June 16 2021 Weuropeflooding oli 2021167 lrg.jpg & File:Deadly_Floods_Surprise_Europe_June_18_2021_Weuropeflooding_oli_2021199_lrg.jpg and File:Western_Europe_Floods_and_UCPM_Assistance_(cropped).jpg, they are about the weather event more than about individual cities. I would have them in the weather section, but there's clearly not enough space. Maybe a gallery-type thing? Then we could also move the two NASA pics from the "climate change" section, where they don't fully fit. So yeah, I'm open to ideas about formatting this. --LordPeterII (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option C. The applicable guideline here is MOS:LEADIMAGE which indicates that infobox/lead images are generally used to give readers visual confirmation that they've arrived at the right page. Pic A does not serve this function: it could be related to any article about a European political event or project. Pic B is alright, but meteorological images of that nature are not really useful for the general public, including me (what does red mean? heat? rain? floods?). Pic C shows a distinctly European city underwater: it's as illustrative as it gets, and you know you are at the right place. JBchrch talk 18:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
• Option C Photographs of the flooding are by far the best way to represent it; a top down view of some green stuff over Europe does not have anywhere near the same effect as seeing a town covered with water. Zoozaz1 talk 19:08, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Inclusion of Turkey?

A quick websearch for "Turkey flooding" reveals a plethora of articles and footage dating from the 22nd and 23rd. If these can be shown to connect to the weather pattern's effects in Romania I think it's worth including, although if it's coincidental then perhaps some kind of compromise can be reached to prevent this article from getting too broad in scope. 90.195.37.193 (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Turkey floods were in Asia not Europe. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Update to the number of deaths in Belgium

This new report says that now 41 people died in Belgium, could someone modify the article for me ? I want to but I don't understand very developed articles code so I fear I might break something. Maxime12346 (talk) 23:28, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Turkey

In the first box of the article, Turkey has been included with at least 77 deaths which is a significant number. But in the Impact section, we don't see Turkey. Please include it. Thanks. Aminabzz (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Turkey floods were in Asia not Europe. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Meteorological cause of the July 2021 flood in Germany highlighted in a recent scientific publication

Ibebuchi CC (2022) Patterns of atmospheric circulation in Western Europe linked to heavy rainfall in Germany: preliminary analysis into the 2021 heavy rainfall episode. Theor Appl Climatol. 148:269–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-022-03945-5 87.190.41.106 (talk) 06:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)