Talk:2011 Joplin tornado: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 17:38, 25 May 2011

Template:Severe

Missouri C‑class Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of May_2011_tornado_outbreak was copied or moved into 2011 Joplin tornado with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Satellite image

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html if legal to do so the satellite image of the joplin storm on this linked page (from noaa) would be nice to include. 71.13.140.152 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA images are public domain. Snideology (talk) 23:58, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fujita Scale Links

So I've noticed that when one clicks on the tornado rating link in the 'tornado box' section of a number of the recent disasters, one is directed to the original Fujita Scale, not the Enhanced. I do not know how to fix that in the boxes; could someone either instruct me how, or fix it themselves please? Thx Snideology (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From the Fujita Scale article: "Several countries, including Canada and France, continue to use the original Fujita Scale." Also, the Enhanced Scale can't be used in article on tornadoes that happened before the changeover. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 04:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map of path available on Jasper County website

There is a map of the swath of damage available at the Jasper County GIS site, click on the Map tab if anybody wants to make a sketch and upload it to the Commons, or describe it in words ("From 13th to 32nd Streets north-south and S Even to S Kemser Rd east-west..."). Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a map here. Pfly (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also, Jasper County put their GIS polygon into a Google Maps type thing, http://www.jaspercounty.org/tornado.htm Pfly (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The survey remains incomplete though, so the track will likely back up to the west and extend east. It is certainly possible it was a long-track tornado connected to the Wentworth tornado as well. Also it is unlikely that it made that hard curve, but rather it is likely it was an extremely wide tornado in the eastern part of the surveyed track. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. Still, it seemed to me that until we know more it would not be appropriate to say it continued into Lawrence County, and perhaps even alarming to some people (ie, people from Lawrence County or with friends/family there). I admit I was a bit alarmed reading that--as part of my extended family is from southern Lawrence County. I agree that it does seem likely it extended farther east, but the way it was phrased, and in the lead, unsourced, didn't seem appropriate. Pfly (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought your comment had something to do with my removing Lawrence County from the lead. Rereading I see that may not have been the case. Pfly (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official rating

What is the definitive official source address for this tornado's rating? -Mardus (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2011may22_survey I think. Still a preliminary rating as I understand. It may well be reclassed as an F5. Pfly (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Janis

--94.175.152.215 (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: Confused rating

In one para, the EF4 rating is said to be low-end, the other says it's high-end EF and both refer to the same source. Which is it, then? -Mardus (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the confusion; the paragraph is describing the damage in different parts of the city. The source was a bit ambiguous, but I have changed it to a better link.-RunningOnBrains^(talk) 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's moot now. NWS Springfield has upgraded it to EF5. God, it's 1953 all over again, isn't it? rdfox 76 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free image

I believe this is a free image we can use. [1] Not sure about the other sizes. - 74.32.172.66 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 1971 tornado

I notice that there is no article that covers the May 1971 tornado that struck Joplin, killing one person and doing millions in damage. There are excellent resources available (many like this one online) and interest in the subject is certainly high right now. While the single tornado might not rate an article, the outbreak of which it was a part certainly should. - Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that these fall under Wikipedia:Notability, you are most welcome to try to start the(se) article(s) yourself. In some cases, single tornados can and do have their own articles (such as the article that goes with this talk page), but in other cases they tend to only be sections within an article about an outbreak. I would start it as the latter, and if you are overrun with relevant information, then I would consider splitting it into its own tornado article. Falconus^{p t c} 15:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital Damage

It would seem in my opinion that the damage to the hospital in Joplin is significant enough to warrant a picture on the site for this tornado if not it's own section as well. 71.13.140.152 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

info box

the info box appears to be broken 71.13.140.152 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. rdfox 76 (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictions Regarding Casualties

at least 123 people were killed and more than 1,150 were injured in Joplin, a number that is likely to rise.[11][12][13] This would make it the deadliest U.S. tornado since April 9, 1947 in Woodward, Oklahoma, and the eighth deadliest tornado in U.S. history.[14] This would also make it the first single tornado since the June 8, 1953 tornado in Flint, Michigan, to have 100 or more associated fatalities.[15]

Two glaring inconsistencies:

1. The Wikipedia home page link that leads to this article states that the casualty rate is at least 117. The article itself states that it's at least 123.

2. The Wikipedia home page link that leads to this article states that it's the deadliest tornado since 1936. The article itself state that it's the deadliest tornado since 1947. Minaker (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest since 1947?

There still remains some debate over the 1947 tornado. Some sources indicate that the 1947 tornado was not actually one tornado, but multiple tornadoes. As our article says, "The event was similar to the Tri-State Tornado two decades before, in that it appeared to observers to be a single, very long-lived tornado. Later analysis suggests that it was a multiple-tornado outbreak." Indeed, the article title and the plural nouns in the body go along with the suggestion that that was a multiple-tornado event. In that case, the Joplin tornado would be the deadliest single tornado since 1936, a point supported by a number of sources (unfortunately in the same way the 1947 date is). -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way (no aerial surveys, for instance), but the deaths were recorded as being a single tornado, which is why I think it is listed as a single tornado on the deadliest list. Glazier-Higgins-Woodward was before modern record-keeping, and so NOAA probably went with how sources at the time recorded it. Note that some of the others higher on the list are suspicious for a variety of reasons (for instance, the Great Natchez tornado almost certainly had a higher death toll than is recorded.) Angiest (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 16:06, 25 May 2011 edit Tariqabjotu (talk \| contribs) Administrators 36,354 edits →Deadliest since 1947?: link to article ← Previous edit		Revision as of 17:38, 25 May 2011 edit undo Angiest (talk \| contribs) 56 edits →Deadliest since 1947? Next edit →
Line 65:		Line 65:

	There still remains some debate over the 1947 tornado. Some sources indicate that the 1947 tornado was not actually one tornado, but multiple tornadoes. As [[1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward tornadoes\|our article]] says, "The event was similar to the Tri-State Tornado two decades before, in that it appeared to observers to be a single, very long-lived tornado. Later analysis suggests that it was a multiple-tornado outbreak." Indeed, the article title and the plural nouns in the body go along with the suggestion that that was a multiple-tornado event. In that case, the Joplin tornado would be the deadliest single tornado since 1936, a point supported by a number of sources (unfortunately in the same way the 1947 date is). -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu\|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)		There still remains some debate over the 1947 tornado. Some sources indicate that the 1947 tornado was not actually one tornado, but multiple tornadoes. As [[1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward tornadoes\|our article]] says, "The event was similar to the Tri-State Tornado two decades before, in that it appeared to observers to be a single, very long-lived tornado. Later analysis suggests that it was a multiple-tornado outbreak." Indeed, the article title and the plural nouns in the body go along with the suggestion that that was a multiple-tornado event. In that case, the Joplin tornado would be the deadliest single tornado since 1936, a point supported by a number of sources (unfortunately in the same way the 1947 date is). -- '''[[User:Tariqabjotu\|<font color="black">tariq</font><font color="gray">abjotu</font>]]''' 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

			:I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way (no aerial surveys, for instance), but the deaths were recorded as being a single tornado, which is why I think it is listed as a single tornado on the deadliest list. Glazier-Higgins-Woodward was before modern record-keeping, and so NOAA probably went with how sources at the time recorded it. Note that some of the others higher on the list are suspicious for a variety of reasons (for instance, the Great Natchez tornado almost certainly had a higher death toll than is recorded.) [[User:Angiest\|Angiest]] ([[User talk:Angiest\|talk]]) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)