Talk:1607 Bristol Channel floods

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on January 30, 2018, January 30, 2022, and January 30, 2023.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Somerset Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Somerset, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Somerset on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SomersetWikipedia:WikiProject SomersetTemplate:WikiProject SomersetSomerset articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Wales Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Bristol Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BristolWikipedia:WikiProject BristolTemplate:WikiProject BristolBristol articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[List of natural disasters by death toll#Ten deadliest tsunamis|List of Deadliest Tsunamis]] The anchor (#Ten deadliest tsunamis) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

See discussion re date at Talk:Bristol Channel

This article sounds more like a debate on whether the flood was caused by a Tsunami or not. It should rather be an article on the Bristol Channel Floods of 1607. There is also it must be said, extremely little evidence that the floods were the result of a tsunami and more focus should be given to the more accepted theories on the flood's cause. Rather the tsunami theory is given most attention as if it is a widely accepted theory on the cause of the flood when it is not. By far most research I have seen say the evidence points to a tidal surge similar to the one which struck the other side of Britain in 1953. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.98.104 (talk) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My sources describe not just that which occurred in the Severn Water, but also surges which breeched the banks 3 months later on the east coast of the UK in Marchland, nr Lynne in Norfolk and the Isle of Sheppey and Boston, Lincs. It killed cattle and crops. It happened the week before Easter in 1607 (Easter was April 15th in 1607). Miracle vpon miracle. Or A true relation of the great floods which happened in Couentry, in Lynne, and other places, on the 16. and 17. dayes of Aprill last past, in this present yeare of our Lord God, 1607 Zorgster (talk) 14:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be a surprising coincidence for the only tsunami to hit the UK in recorded history to coincide with an astronomical high tide. 87.112.111.117 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recently removed a broken reference to Bryant & Haslett. This is not a "POV push against the tsunami theory", in fact I added the URL so that there paper in the Journal of Geology could be accessed by other users. My reasoning is based on working through the Wikiproject Somerset cleanup listing where this article shows up as lacking in text citations - which is not true so I removed the banners. My other action was to remove those in external links which are already used as references.— Rod ^talk 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References 7 and 10 in the current list are both broken and do not enable readers to go and evaluate them. If these are to be kept in (which i don't think they should) then dead link labels should be added.— Rod ^talk 19:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2002 paper is available here. Alternative refs that could be considered include this and this. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{dead link}} is entirely reasonable, as would be trawling Bath Poly's site to find if they're still online elsewhere. However these were both published journals which are recoverable (libraries didn't close when the intaweb started) so they're still perfectly acceptable refs, even if the URLs aren't recoverable. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added deadlink to ref 10 & replaced the URL for ref 7.— Rod ^talk 22:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be there for no obvious reason! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removed.— Rod ^talk 18:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Welsh for Bristol Channel floods is Llif Mawr Môr Hafren' (literally: "Big Severn Estuary Flood", I don't dispute that (although llifogydd might be more accurate?) But is the Welsh translation particularly relevant to the article? As far as I know, the coastal parts of South Wales affected by the floods were, as they are today, predominantly English-speaking. The article currently doesn't include any contemporary Welsh language sources and if there are any I'd be pleased to see them. The memorial brass set into the wall of St Mary's in Goldcliff, three years later, is very certainly in English. Diolch yn fawr. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did they even take place in Wales? Where was Monmouthshire back then? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "The devastation was particularly severe on the Welsh side, extending from Laugharne in Carmarthenshire to above Chepstow..." But the parts most severely affected were certainly the Caldicot and Wentloog Levels. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some edits to try and help fix this article's serious issues with WP:UNDUE and WP:COI. As written before, this article was presenting a single paper (the Horsburgh & Horritt reference) as having completely upended the previous tsunami theory and definitively established the storm surge theory as correct. This is not at all appropriate, regardless of how convincing that paper may be, unless subsequent references can be provided showing that this paper did indeed fundamentally change the scholarly consensus and was not simply another theory. Also, it is certainy of note that much of this information was added by none other than User:Kevinhorsburgh, one of that paper's authors, so we should view this with even more scrutiny than usual. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I am definitely not an expert on this topic and it's totally possible that there is now a scholarly consensus that it was a storm surge. But if so, we need more to back that up than one paper advancing the theory (which is in fact less than we currently have for the tsunami theory). -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the storm surge theory is now widely accepted. A search for articles on "1607 bristol channel" since 2018 on google scholar at [1] shows mostly ones which attribute is to a storm surge. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is the single additional reference by Mike Hall (2013) sufficient to demonstrate the change in academic consensus? What about the WP:COI issue: should that be flagged up? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I missed that source at first - that indeed seems like a great reference to demonstrate this, but it's currently only being cited to make a specific point about the flooding period, rather than to demonstrate a more general change of consensus. I can't access the book, so I'm not sure if it supports that or not, but it certainly sounds like it might.

What originally brought me here was this WP:OTD item, which is currently running on the main page:

1607 – Low-lying places around the coasts of the Bristol Channel of Britain were flooded, possibly by a tsunami, resulting in an estimated 2,000 deaths.

I clicked through to the article, and my first inclination was to complain at WP:ERRORS that this didn't reflect the article's clear implication that a tsunami was an outdated theory. But then after looking into it more, it seemed to me like it might be the article itself that was misstating things. If we do indeed find other sources to back up the fact that the article was right all along, then this item probably should be updated.

Regarding WP:COI specifically, my concern there was that we were basing our claims that the storm surge theory was predominant almost entirely on a single source, which (though definitely reliable) had been added to the article by the author himself. If we find other sources to back that up (or if we don't, and keep the current neutral tone), then I think that settles that issue. -Elmer Clark (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[The note about calendar change suggests the OTD is ten days late?] Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tsunami hypothesis is a fringe theory from a single research team (Haslett & Bryant) (albeit enthusiastically parroted by the media), and the H&H source comprehensively refutes it. The storm surge theory is clearly the consensuses in the literature, this is self-evident from a basic search of sources:

• Long, David. (2015). A catalogue of tsunamis reported in the UK. British Geological Survey Technical Report:

"It has been claimed that a tsunami may have been responsible (Bryant and Haslett, 2002; Haslett and Bryant, 2004). The exceptional high tide (14.36m above chart datum) that occurred at 9am combined with the severe weather points to a storm surge as the more likely explanation. The most authoritative account says that a westerly gale blew for 16 hours although some records state that a strong south-west wind blew unbroken for three days (Horsburgh and Horritt, 2006). It is unlikely that an earthquake could have caused a tsunami directly as seismic events with an epicentre around Britain are not expected to be large enough to generate significant surface rupture to cause a tsunami. Also there are no reports of damage to buildings to indicate a local earthquake. If it was a distant earthquake and its epicentre located further away than if it triggered a tsunami it could be expected that the wave would be been more wide ranging and notrestricted to the Bristol Channel. If the origin of a tsunami is a submarine landslide, extensive bathymetric surveys on the shelf do not reveal any evidence of a slide within the Bristol Channel. Large landslides usually occur on the upper slopes of continental margin such as seen south of Ireland. A tsunami from such a source could be expected to have simultaneously struck the coasts of Ireland, UK and France, and therefore be more widely reported.This is considered a non-tsunami event."

There are no WP:UNDUE or WP:COI problems here. What we certainly shouldn't be doing is giving the tsunami hypothesis equal weight, or present it as anything other than a refuted theory.----Pontificalibus 10:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources to demonstrate the consensus against the tsunami hypothesis, if we need even more let me know.----Pontificalibus 15:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks good to me after your edits, thanks. I think this article's conclusions are well supported now. It looks like there's already a discussion going on about the related OTD item - I will be sure to point them toward this discussion. -Elmer Clark (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The text from "Severn Tidings" here, is as follows:

"Flood 400" is a church and community partnership setup in 2006 to commemorate the 'Great Flood of 1607 in 2007. The villages of Redwick, Nash and Goldcliff and their communities along the shoreline of the Severn Estuary, have traditional rural communities which were significantly affected by the flood.

The 1607 flood was a significant natural disaster during which hundreds of lives were lost, homes destroyed and thousands of acres of farmland destroyed, depriving local people of a livelihood and an income. This disaster affected most of the South Wales coast, along with parts of Gloucestershire, Somerset and North Devon.

A commemorative religious service was held on the actual anniversary of the "Great Flood" January 30th 2007 - with the Bishop of Bath & Wells. A packed church, including local people, civic dignitaries & local schools, gathered to commemorate the great loss of life & the affect it had on these local communities. The service was a fitting tribute, incorporating aspects of church liturgy from the 17th century as well as more contemporary ones.

A series of events are taking place throughout 2007 under the banner of "Flood 400" focused around the only public buildings in these communities; the church, village hall & public houses. Events include lectures, exhibitions, religious services, school visits, guided tours & walks, etc. The culmination of these events will be a festival weekend which will include heritage exhibitions, a flower & craft festival, guided tours, audio visual displays, guest speakers and choral & music concerts. Local schools are involved in the planning and creation of "Flood 400". The anniversary presents a unique occasion to use our actual local history from 400 years ago to commemorate and communicate fundamental questions for people & society today.

"Flood 400" events will be held throughout 2007. Flood 400 festival weekend will take place between 24th – 28th May 2007 at the churches in Redwick, Nash & Goldcliff & at Redwick Village Hall. Contact: richardjones@churchinwales.org.uk to receive email notification of all Flood 400 events.

Richard Jones, Flood 400 Planning Group – 2007.

The text in the article is this;

"In 2006 "Flood 400", a church and community partnership, was set up to commemorate the Great Flood. A commemorative service was held, on the anniversary day in 2007, with the Bishop of Bath and Wells. A series of events took place, throughout the year, centred on the public buildings in the villages of Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick and included exhibitions, lectures, religious services, school visits, guided tours and walks. A festival weekend took place between 24 and 28 May 2007.^[1]"

Martinevans123 (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Flood 400" is a church and community partnership setup in 2006 to commemorate the ‘Great Flood of 1607 in 2007. compared to "In 2006 "Flood 400", a church and community partnership, was set up to commemorate the Great Flood.

A commemorative religious service was held on the actual anniversary of the "Great Flood" January 30th 2007 - with the Bishop of Bath & Wells. vs A commemorative service was held, on the anniversary day in 2007, with the Bishop of Bath and Wells.

A series of events are taking place throughout2007 under the banner of ‘Flood 400’ focused around the only public buildings in these communities; the church, village hall & public houses. Events include lectures, exhibitions, religious services, school visits, guided tours & walks, etc. The culmination of these events will be a festival weekend which will include heritage exhibitions, a flower & craft festival, guided tours, audio visual displays, guest speakers and choral & music concerts. vs A series of events took place, throughout the year, centred on the public buildings in the villages of Goldcliff, Nash and Redwick and included exhibitions, lectures, religious services, school visits, guided tours and walks. A festival weekend took place between 24 and 28 May 2007.

It's the exact same phrases just reordered, or with different synonyms placed in. This is a case of Close paraphrasing. Sennecaster (Chat) 21:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How might one re-word those four sentences to avoid violation of copyright? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unfortunately unable to give a super detailed reply at the moment; wrist strain. However, close paraphasing should avoid simply rearranging phrases and swapping synonyms. I don't think of writing as rewording sources, rather as stating the facts plainly as they are. The first sentence could go along the lines of The partnership "Flood 400" was created in 2006 to commemorate the anniversary of the flood, bringing together church and community., for instance. I don't write in British English, however, so the grammar might be off. Sennecaster (Chat) 01:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a {Use British English} template. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The original text read: "On the 400th anniversary, 30 January 2007, [[BBC Somerset]] looked at the possible causes and asked whether it could happen again in the [[Somerset|county]].<ref>{{harvnb|BBC staff|2014}}</ref>" Sennecaster added "c<ref>''Severn Tidings'', Issue 9, Winter 2006-07, Severn Estuary Partnership, page 6.</ref>". I reverted as it makes no sense to add a "c" with a citation. Sennecaster restored the edit with the comment "copyright violation removals should not be reverted without explanation" I reverted again with the comment "Adding a source is not a removal of a copyright violation". This was again reverted with "there was more than a source added. For the edit to be "adding a source" then the only thing the edit should contain is the addition of a reference without text. This is a WP:CLOP/WP:CV removal. If you want to revert further, go to the talk page". I agree that there was not only a source as there was also a text "c", but I do not see how the edit makes sense or how it can relate a copyright violation. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles; you're reading my edit entirely wrong. Yes, I inserted a c by accident, but I also removed copyvio. If you use visual diff, you see that I removed the paragraph cited to the Severn Tidings source. In wikitext, it shows that I merged 2 paragraphs (so deleted 2 paragraphs, created one paragraph), but I really only removed the actually copied content and then accidentally hit a key when I was moving the ref via control c and control v. Please read edits more closely before you hit revert, especially on copyright or BLP. Also, reverting over a singular misinerted letter is silly. Sennecaster (Chat) 22:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why the Severn Tidings source was retained, as it doesn't support the sentence about the BBC article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I missed the removal of the next paragraph, but I was misled by you making the Severn Tidings source wrongly support the BBC comment, as Martinevans says. Even without the rogue "c", the edit was correctly reverted as it wrongly left in the source. It is not reasonable to expect editors to understand what is meant by a bad and confusing edit. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got harangued on talk pages repeatedly for removing references so I just started merging them upwards. You can't win for losing because now the opposite is happening. :P Sennecaster (Chat) 01:28, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm haranguing you? Do we want that source there or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not want the source as the statement it supports has been deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sennecaster I am sorry if you get wrongly harangued for deleting a citation when you delete the statement it supports, but I think you just have to reply pointing out that it corrupts an article for statements to be supported by irrelevant citations. A solution might be, when you delete for copyvio, to explain the edit on the talk page and invite editors to reinsert the comment in their own words and restore the citation if they think it is important. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]