Talk:2024 Wayanad landslides

Number of Deaths (As of August 1)

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.

---

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)

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.

Unwanted edits are being added by user Chin_pin_choo

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.

---

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)

---

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.

Relevance of 2022 Study in Background section

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.

---

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)

---

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.

Wherewithal as Column

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.

---

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)

---

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.

Modest Contributions

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.

---

@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)

---

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.

Why user Swarleystinson88 is changing the data chronologically???

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.

---

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)

---

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.

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)