Talk:1970 Bhola cyclone

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee1970 Bhola cyclone was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
May 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
July 16, 2016Peer reviewReviewed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 13, 2005, November 13, 2006, November 13, 2007, November 13, 2008, November 13, 2009, November 13, 2010, November 13, 2011, November 12, 2013, November 12, 2017, and November 12, 2020.
Current status: Former good article nominee


The title of this article may be wrong. Can anyone confirm that this disaster is most generally known as the 'Bhola cyclone'. I'm not finding many Google references to it under that name, and the cyclone + tidal wave affected a much larger area. In the meantime, I've moved to page to '1970 Bhola cyclone' to conform to the style of other natural disaster articles and because cyclones in the area of the Bay of Bengal occur nearly every year. -- Solipsist 09:55, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Worst recorded disaster?[edit]

I cut this text:

and possibly the worst recorded natural disaster in terms of the number of lives lost

because [1] refers to three earthquakes with higher numbers of dead (the source given there is Catalog of significant earthquakes 2000 BC–1979, including Quantative Casualties and Damage, NOAA World Data Center, 1981). If famines and epidemics count as natural disasters — which they do according to the Wikipedia article — then there have been many much more deadly than any earthquake or storm. Gdr 17:49, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)

Probably a good call. After writing this, I noticed Tangshan earthquake on Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week, which claims similar official death toll, but a higher maximum estimate. One of the main reasons that unofficial death tolls can be a lot higher is that there is no recent census to know how many people (especially children) were previously living in the area. It would be impossible to know which one was actually worse, so the claim shouldn't be made - or if it is, it should be fully qualified.
I removed a similar statement from a link to this page, but forgot that it was still in the article. -- Solipsist 19:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I removed the link again. The tsunami/earthquake has little to do with the Bhola cyclone. Yes, in one more lives were lost, and there was some misreporting, but that misreporting was not in this article (or no longer is).
Think of it from the point of view of someone who reads the article. Out of the blue, there's a link to an earthquake with no explicit relevancy to the article. If the earthquake was misreported as the largest disaster, then a relevant comment debunking it should be placed in that article, not this one.Beetle B. 01:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree there shouldn't be an out-of-context link. Rather we should include a link in context, in the article. I did this by adding a "fully qualified" claim of deadliness. The wording I used is identical to what the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake article uses. Jdorje 03:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Side note: this "see also" is also in the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone article. I'm pretty sure I put it there when writing the article, mindlessly copying this article. Jdorje 05:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The official figure for death toll is 500,000, according to Banglapedia (see [2]). I updated the figure in the article. I agree that the real number is not known and can be higher, the region being one of the most densely populated in the world. --Ragib 04:01, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This brings the question: official according to who? It should be either the government (except that government doesn't exist anymore) or some world organization (UN? WHO?), right? Banglapedia may be reliable (I don't know) but they are not an official source. Can you find an official source for the number? Jdorje 05:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Banglapedia is the "official encyclopedia of Bangladesh". So, I guess this should be an official source. I did a quick google search, and found several book references, here is an example: Natural Hazards: by Graham A Tobin, Guilford Press, 1997 ISBN1572300620. This states on page 11: "Certainly , many of the 300,000 to 500,000 who died in Bangladesh in 1970 were victims of seawater". Here is a news item in BBC, stating the death toll as 500,000. And here is another one from . The Straight Dope site puts the number to 300,000. I'm not sure if Bangladesh Govt websites has the figure... I'll have to check. --Ragib 05:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I presume the figure of 500,000 made it the deadliest, and not the "other estimates"? Beetle B. 23:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any of the estimates would make it the deadliest cyclone. The next most deadly tropical cyclone is the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone which killed about 150,000. See List_of_wars_and_disasters_by_death_toll#Hurricane_and_cyclone (the #2 entry there is flat-out wrong). There is uncertainty about which of the natural disasters is deadliest. Also there's the 1556 Shaanxi earthquake which (if the numbers are to be believed) killed close to a million people - hence the "in modern times" qualifier (and this should probably also be qualified "as of 2005"). Jdorje 23:58, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the 1931 Huang He flood is generally considered to be the worst disaster in recorded history. At least from everything I've read. jcomp489

Indeed...along with several other Yellow River floods that are larger than any other natural disasters. I guess the question is: is the "in modern times" qualifier sufficient to exclude them? Jdorje 16:04, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The question remains, how do you classify events. That is, do you consider flood a single event, or do you consider the flood and any resulting famine separate events. The thing about earthquake, Tsunami, Cyclones etc is that these are single events that kills most people instantly, while in floods, people mostly die of famine and other after effects, not the flood itself. If the flood is a flash flood like the breaking of a dam, then many people may die instantly. But I think "death by disaster" refers to people dying thru the disaster directly, rather than thru the after effects. --Ragib 17:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you are seriously misunderstanding the nature of this particular disaster. Most of the deaths in the 1970 Bhola cyclone (and many similar disasters affecting Bangladesh) were as the result of a tidal surge. The effects are prety much indistinquishable from a tsunami and most of the deaths would have occurred over a period of a couple of hours. This event would have been much more like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake (only probably greater loss of life), than the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Perhaps the article should make this clearer. -- Solipsist 19:34, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was replying to jcomp489, who commented that the Huang he flood is the worst natural disaster. I meant that the floods (in Huang he or otherwise) are not directly responsible for all those deaths, the resulting disease and famines are. On the contrary, in case of a cyclone like the 1970 one, people died almost directly as a result of the tidal wave. Also, I understand the nature of this disaster very very well, I was born and brought up in Chittagong, and faced the 1991 Bangladesh cyclone first-hand. The shape of the Bay of Bengal near Bangladesh is like a funnel, so any large cyclone creates huge tidal waves. During the 1991 cyclone, the tidal waves were 30+ feet high (I lived 10+ miles inland, but even there water reached up to the 2nd floor of buildings). People living in the coast literally were swept away and drowned in matter of seconds. That's why I commented that this is quite different from floods, which may be bad, but do not kill people directly, and as such can't be termed as worst natural disasters. --Ragib 19:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fine points made, btw. I suppose you're right, otherwise the greatest disasters would be the various outbreaks of disease that have occured throughout history. Point taken. jcomp489
Ah, sorry - my mistake. I hadn't spotted the divergence in the discussion from the earlier '

this is not like the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake' comments. -- Solipsist 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Death Toll[edit]

I think we should change the 500,000 deaths to 500,000+, since we do not know the exact number. HurricaneGeek {User talk:HurricaneGeek} — Preceding undated comment added 14:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HurricaneGeek: If you look we have the symbol ≥ in the infobox.Jason Rees (talk) 15:10, 17 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per the WMO, most reliable sources back up the death toll of 300,000. I quote: However, less regulated sites such as Wikipedia consistently state 500,000 people dead. Unfortunately, these sites claiming a 500,000 death toll list as source weblinks which are dead or inactive or, as one committee member noted, “part of the ‘grey’ literature.” Consequently, given the consistency in the reviewed professional literature (particularly articles dating to times just after the catastrophe), the committee recommended acceptance of the estimated 300,000 value as best available estimate of the Great Bhola Cyclone mortality. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


why is it showing an all depression? Irfanfaiz 05:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because the intensity is unknown. If we had a separate color for unknown we could use that instead. Jdorje 05:47, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the best-track file, wind speed and pressure are given as 0 for each entry, and only a position and type is given. Jdorje 05:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. See {{[[Template:storm colour unknown|sto

's winds, but rather due to the tidal bore that swept the coastal areas. And it doesn't come gradually, but rather is like a tsunami. So, it is of course justifiable that many people were asleep at the time. --Ragib 19:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I understand that they might have been asleep at the time the flooding started but I'm assuming they woke up when the water hit. Perhaps it should just be rephrased to something like "The result was widespread flooding, with many people asleep when the tidal bore overwhelmed their homes" but "people drowning in their sleep" infers that they died while sleeping. It's addressing the state of the person right before their death, not when the floods first hit. Ando228 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Now that the intensity is apparently known, as shown by the "category 3 cyclone", why is the map sitll unknown? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 01:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because what still is unknown is how strong it was at each position. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found it in a book that it is 919 mb...


Expand intro and more impact. Storm05 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Todo (part 3)[edit]

I'm not going to be able to do all this myself (at least not right away), but this article needs to be restructured similarly to other tropical cyclone articles (see Cyclone Mala, Hurricane Isabel, Tropical Storm Bilis). It needs separate impact and storm history sections. --Coredesat 18:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nilfanion, great rewrite. Just copyedit it to ensure flow, and potentially add damage images. Also, add 2006 USD when it is not included. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyediting is best done by a fresh pair of eyes, I've had to trawl though a lot...--Nilfanion (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The sortable table seems slightly broken because the totals are included in the sorting. Surely there is some way to avoid this so that the row of totals remains outside of the sort? — jdorje (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other issues: (1) where do the numbers in the table come from? Those are arrived at statistically? A source needs to be given and if it is statistical the columns should probably be reordered. (2) What does "This reflected the elimination of the less healthy individual cyclones during the storm." mean? — jdorje (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The aftermath section needs a couple of paragraphs of overview. — jdorje (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any dollar amounts need to be converted into 2007 variants. Often this should say like "$1 million ($10 million in 2006 USD)" or something. If this seems extremely tedious or cluttering it is a sign that you have too many numbers being stuck in. I think the 'international response' has way too many numbers (which would be better represented in a table). You should also use " " to separate units from numbers (so that line breaks will not separate them), as in "$10 million". — jdorje (talk) 03:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the table, that's from the epidemiology report used extensively in that section. I'd much prefer to retain the sortability; it needs a few fixes still (I'm researching how to fix). Both issues will likely be resolved with a bit of hacking. The Int'l response needs a general copyedit from someone else and its easier for them if the raw numbers are present in article, they can see them that way. A table may be a possibility, but I'm not convinced that would make sense. Likewise, its probably easier for the copyeditor if the conversions aren't cluttering it up (its all 1970 USD). Oh and use Commonwealth English not American in this article.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh and the conversions in this article (and all the other WPTC articles) are staying for 2006 USD until such time as our primo source updates to give a 2007 figure that is not a forecast.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you don't at least add the current units in, it makes copyediting a lot harder. — jdorje (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my opinion, that is not essential prior to editing; I'd rather not do it because the number of conversions in there is a lot and not exactly trivial labour. The copyediting will likely cull a lot of the raw numbers in any case; no objection to that. Adding in all the conversions now reduces the readability, which makes copyediting harder. Knowing that all the numbers are in the same unit (1970 USD) is all that really matters for that.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then all of the items stating "units unknown" should probably be deleted -- it makes the article somewhat difficult to read. --JD79 14:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA assessment – on hold Symbol wait.svg[edit]

Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have put the article on hold at this time. My comments are as follows:

There has been a good deal of work put into the article. Inline citations are generally very well put together (see a couple of issues below) and in most of the article there is clear prose and good grammar.

However as the assessor I will require a number of adjustments (most are minor but one or two will take a bit of work) as detailed below before I can GA pass the article. As is always the case the system allows 2 – 7 days to finalise such requests – but in some cases a couple of extra days can be granted. Please let me know directly (before the first 7 days) if you need that extra time.

I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion. Done

  1. I think editors should look at WP:Lead section so that the lead can be reconstructed – BUT only after the other adjustments below are made. I say this because the lead should be capable of standing alone whilst being a summary of the major points of the article. Currently the lead in this document neglects to mention some parts (for example international assistance) in any way. In addition the article can afford and probably requires a longer lead simply because it is quite large and content is complex in many areas.
  2. The most obvious concern appears particularly in the area of international assistance – with the content providing a vast amount of (units unknown) references. I have three specific reasons for my concern; (1) these appear sloppy for a potential GA article, (2) there are obvious cases where it is clear what the units are for example the sentence that says (The British government promised $2.5 million (units unknown) in aid and an appeal by the Disasters Emergency Committee raised about £1.5 million (units unknown) for disaster relief in East Pakistan.[29][35] ) is obviously talking about pounds sterling in the second reference, and others for example (By the end of November, the League of Red Cross Societies had collected $3.5 million to supply aid to the victims of the disaster.[29] ) where it appears that we are left to guess whether the editors knew that $ meant a specific unit: and (3) most of these inline citations relate to this reference (Halloran, Richard. "Pakistan Storm Relief a Vast Problem", New York Times, November 29, 1970.) which does not actually assist directly with verification unless one has the article to compare the figures. I suggest a major clean up of these parts, and in particular the article should choose whether it wishes to nominate the type of currency (which is probably the most useful conclusion) or not – but not to, as is the current situation, sometimes indicate units unknown and at others leave readers to assume that $ means ? and £ means pounds.
    The NYT article is archived, and citing it in the article would constitute a copyvio. The $ means 1970 USD; I can email you links to the articles in refs 21 and 29 if you need to see them.--Coredesat 21:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for fixing currency units and explaining the NYT archived situation.--VS talk 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. The size of the image titled (storm path) should be increased to about 250px – using a similar coding to the image (first flag of Bangladesh) and indeed this image should also be resized to this size of 250px.
    I disagree. The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has set standards for every single article. If you believe the storm path should be increased, you should take it up on the project talk page, as a change would involve hundreds of articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you - I understand your position. My comment came with regards other similar articles with larger images - but I see that for your group you have set your owns standards. No problems - I accept your point of few.--VS talk 03:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. There are a few grammatical errors in terms of sentence throughout the document and should be carefully proof-read for and then edited out – for example (there are others) the sentences (There were indications that storm-warning system existing in East Pakistan was not used properly, which may have cost tens of thousands their lives); and (When next destructive cyclone approached the country in 1991, volunteers from the Cyclone Preparedness Programme warned people of the cyclone two to three days before it struck land.), and (He also said that the general election slated for December 7 would take place on time, although eight or nine of the worst affected districts might experience delays, denying rumours that the election would be postponed). I suggest a full proof read of the entire article and adjustment of sentences where appropriate.
  5. This sentence and its corresponding reference (Whilst the 1991 cyclone killed over 138,000 people, this was substantially less than the 1970 storm and the Cyclone Preparedness Programme must take some of the credit for that.[45] ) is unverifiable in its current form – please provide detail of the page that it refers to as otherwise I am unable to ascertain it is not in breach of WP:POV or the opinion only of the editor who added the comment.  Done
  6. I am concerned by the possible POV breach in this sentence (Many smaller Asian nations sent nominal amounts of aid) – why are they nominal – what is the exact reference – for example the Vatican provided only $100,000 and the Italians only $5,500 but they are not referred to as nominal?  Done
  7. This sentence assumes an external context which is not explained in the article (The Soviet aircraft replaced the British and American helicopters that had operated immediately after the cyclone and had drawn criticism from Bengalis.[26] ) please rewrite.  Done ??? - It's got even worse. Now it is broken into two sentences, the 2nd one reads: "The Soviet aircraft, which had drawn criticism from Bengalis, replaced the British and American helicopters that had operated immediately after the cyclone." This statement is based on and completely rephrases a single unverified sentence from a newspaper article which literally states: "Four Soviet air force helicopters — operating as replacement for British and American aircraft which roused sharp criticism from Bengalis in the first weeks after the cyclone — still fly basic items such as blankets and clothes to hard-hit areas." Not only this newspaper report is not substantiated, it does not clearly specify neither the object of criticism, nor the cause of it, making "criticism" part totally uninformative. For example you can read it as "British and American aircraft which roused sharp criticism from Bengalis in the first weeks after the cyclone". And there is absolutely nothing in it that says: "British and American helicopters that had operated immediately after the cyclone".
  8. Similarly this sentence (The American Peace Corps offered to send volunteers, but were rebuffed by the Pakistani government.[29] ) needs to be expanded upon or adjusted in some way.
  9. Similarly this sentence – or at least the end of it (The Governor of East Pakistan, Vice Admiral Asham denied charges that the armed forces had not acted quickly enough and said supplies were reaching all parts of the disaster area except for some small pockets.) also needs some expansion to gain clarity especially in reference to external readers understanding ‘small pockets’.
  10. I think the article would work better chronologically if this heading and contents (International response) was moved above (Political consequences).
  11. The word (Ittefaq) is mislinked – there may be others and I will check them all after you tell me that you would like a re-assessment... so please check them all before you ask for reassessment.
  12. Other links such as (Awami League) are linked several times and sometimes within a few paragraphs of each other.
  13. This reference – whilst very helpful (Sommer, Alfred; Mosley, Wiley (May 13, 1972). East Bengal cyclone of November, 1970: Epidemiological approach to disaster assessment (PDF). The Lancet. Retrieved on April 15, 2007.) should be adjusted so as to indicate the page number on each occasion of the information being nominated – so as to ensure that there is no breach of WP:OR for example in the sentence (This reflected the elimination of the less healthy individuals during the storm.) I would prefer to see a direct reference to this comment so that I can tell that it is being expressed exactly that way by the reference author as it is being expressed in the wiki article.
  14. Remove the first comma in the sentence (The survey concluded that the overall death toll was, at minimum, 224,000.)
  15. This sentence (families who were completely wiped out by the storm) and others in the article should be adjusted so as to meet the guidelines found at Wikipedia:Words to avoid ... this is my point too in item 9 above.
  16. Numerical details less than 10 should be spelled out rather than shown as numbers, in cases such as detailed in the sentence (there have been at least 6 cyclones to hit the region) – which should adjust to ... there have been at least six cyclones to hit the region ... but not in cases such as (equivalent to a Category 3 hurricane).  Done
  17. There is room for further wiki-linking of unlinked terms which will assist readers navigating the article.

Whilst there is a chance that you are left somewhat flabbergasted at the apparent amount of work still needed (having read all that I have indicated above) – I can also indicate again to you that for the most part, editors have done an excellent job and if you fix all of the above suggestions within seven days and let me know I will review it again and it has a good chance of passing – but please make sure that you get all the adjustments done.

A GA article as most of you will know is a feather in your cap - and this article is certainly worth pushing down that road.

Please let me know on my talk page when you finish or if you have any questions. Cheers --VS talk 13:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA assessment – failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg[edit]

This article has not reached GA criteria in the time provided. I do note the adjustments made by various editors towards that goal and I have returned in agreement on the legitimate comments left by editors in return of the above assessment. I invite you to adjust the document to the standards required and re-nominate. I also note (briefly) in the interests of transparency that user:Nilfanion has contacted me with regards his inability to pursue this article for some time, due to personal stress issues (which he has posted on his user page). I respect that position and have returned to him in private however, with respect, I do not think it is wise to leave the GA assessment in abeyance until his return and have not done so. I will be more than happy to continue with the assessment personally when the article reaches WP:GAC and therefore bump it up the list if renomination occurs in a reasonable amount of time.--VS talk 03:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I fail to see why it would be premature; the addition has nothing to do with deaths, but instead that Sidr was a cyclone hitting a similar area with a similar track. (to clarify, the IP that made the original change is me; I sometimes forget to log in) IPchangesthe box 15:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There have been several cyclones that took that track, though only Sidr has an article. I don't see the need, particularly if Sidr causes less than 1% of this storm's death total, to include Sidr. Furthermore, the track wasn't that similar. It started a short distance east of India, only strengthened to Cat. 3 status, and had a north-northeast track for much of its duration. Sidr started near the Andoman Islands, and became one of many cyclones to strike Bangaldesh. I removed Sidr again, and replaced it with the List of Bangladesh tropical cyclones article, since that would be a more logical and useful Wikilink for comparing other related storms. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems pretty reasonable; the track was fairly similar AFTER the turn, however. (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV statement[edit]

Is there any good reason why these two sentences are included? In Italy and Switzerland, many people lost interest in the disaster after the initial shock. News reports indicated that they perceived the disaster was far away and was someone else's responsibility. It seems grossly POV to me. If the source indicates that this was the attitude taken by many og the people, it should definitely be reworded for clarification. bob rulz (talk) 15:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thousands of Retards Are Killed by Tidal Wave[edit]

Can someone check if the NY Times really published that in a headline? It's cite 13. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems like old vandalism that was never caught. I can't find the specific offending edit, but I've added the correct title nonetheless. Thank you for catching this! Juliancolton (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 4[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 5[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 6[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 7[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 8[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 9[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 10[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 11[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 12[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dead link 13[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have removed the 112-knot 1-minute sustained winds figure after finding that the JTWC has no wind data on it, while a Google search is mostly empty-handed. If this is to be re-added, I'd really like to see a lot of sources stating the same thing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1970 Bhola cyclone. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]