Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak

Awful weather writing

Let's stick to the first paragraph. Quote-

"This one tornado alone inflicted 695 fatalities, more than twice as many as the second deadliest, the Great Natchez, Mississippi Tornado of May 7, 1840. The 151 to 235 mi (243 to 378 km) track left by the tornado was the longest ever recorded in the world, as it crossed from southeastern Missouri, through southern Illinois, then into southwestern Indiana."

GAH!

Suggested edit

"The tornado killed 695 people, twice as many as the second deadliest in US history. The track length, estimated at up to 235 miles, is the longest ever recorded worldwide. The tornado followed a path from SE Missouri across S Illinois and into SW Indiana."

Comment - tornadoes are no persons. They do not "inflict fatalities". They kill people. The word inflict implies a will. You could say God inflicted the casualties, but you probably would not want to. You get the point. There is no need to list every last detail in a summary. The interested reader can discover for himself the 2nd deadliest event if he wishes. Twice means 2x or more. It does not mean 2x on the button. Things are not recorded in the world. They are recorded in history. Tornadoes to not cross - they produce tracks.

As you see, the hyperbolic, overly specific, and extremely purple nature of the prose accumulates usage and readability errors RAPIDLY, and it quickly becomes extremely tiresome to read these weather articles. It's not just this one article or set of authors - it is a general trend at Wiki that the articles about weather events are AWFULLY WRITTEN.

There is no point in a single person trying to straighten out such a mess. There needs to be an editorial board dedicated to factual and clearly stated information about weather events, stripped of hyperbolic language and high-school level usage whoppers.

Antimatter33 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

picture of the tornado?

Years ago, about 10 years ago, I found a old picture of the tornado itself! Yes, a picture was snapped of the tri-state tornado as it was crossing the Wabash river Indiana, but I havent been able to find the picture ever since (should of downloaded it). Does anyone know of it? It would be the only photo taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus 100 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I found a picture of it from a web-site with a tornado history page and a image claiming to be it, considering the age (and time shown of the cars) it seems to be fairly legit especially with the site. Here is the website for reference, since I also don't know how to add a picture yet you may do the honors since you apparently found the picture first. ;)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01927/tornadohistory.htm User:Dobat 9 December, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.202.174 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that picture of the tornado is actually the Xenia, Ohio tornado taken during the Super Outbreak in April of 1974.--LK Thurisaz (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LK Thurisaz, you are correct; that is the 1974 Xenia, Ohio tornado. That particular photo received wide distribution in the local and national press at the time of the '74 Super Outbreak. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That picture is definitely not the Tri-State Tornado of 1925. The vehicles in the foreground are obviously not that old. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.152 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Maximum" F5

That an F5 is the maximum is simply not true. From Fujita scale:

The gap between F0 and F1 corresponds to the eleventh and twelveth levels of the Beaufort scale, "violent storm" and "hurricane" respectively. Theoretically, the wind speeds for F11 and F12 correspond to Mach number 0.9 and 1.0 respectively

12 is the highest theorectical limit. I know we'll never get there, but F6 is not entirely out of the question. The infographic on that page even has it up. maximum implies the end. The highest it could be. Thats simply false. Saying that it reached F5, the highest level a tornado has thusfar been observed at, or something similer with less cumbersome writing would be fine. But the way it is worded now implies that the Fujita scale ends at F5. It does not. -AKMask 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true. Google any Fujita scale article from the SPC, NCDC, NOAA, Tornado Project, a university meteorology department, or other reputable sources (such as the Glossary of Meteorology):

"F1 on the Fujita scale is equal to B12 (73 mph) on the Beaufort

scale, which is the minimum windspeed required to upgrade a tropical storm to a hurricane. F12 on the Fujita scale is equal to M1 (738 mph) on the Mach numbers. Though the Fujita scale itself ranges up to F12, the strongest tornadoes max out in the F5 range (261 to 318 mph)."

Fujita connected Beaufort 12 (miniumum hurricane speed of 74 mph which is just under B12, more correctly) with F1 to Mach 1 using a formula: V = 6.30(F+2)^1.5 m/s -->. It's just an open ended scale derived from the formula, similar to the Beaufort scale, his theoretical limit was not that high; he specifically designated F0-F5 as the actual damage and wind speed range. All tornadoes are rated this, none higher, it's impossible in the way the scale is defined. As for the Fujita scale article (which is being rewritten), check out the source linked for the part you quoted, as well as what else the article says:

"(F6 is not in use)"

"Relative frequency -"

Oh and if you're so concerned about changes, the appropriate, and cordial, action is to discuss it on a talk page first, not change the article (again). Evolauxia 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is not in use, but that doesn't mean it is non-existant. Im simply arguing that the wording, F5 being the max, is confusing in that it is wrong. It's not the maximum in the scale. It's the highest of any storm observed, but not the scales maximum. -AKMask 01:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Thunderstorm wind distribution.PNG

In actual ratings and the usable scale, as Fujita himself specifically designed it, and maintained throughout the years (through minor updates), as well as how it is utilised by users of the scale, F5 is the maximum. I made it clear. There is no need for the additional, it's impossible for damage to be above F5, and the wind speed ranges (specific values of which were just guesses) were designed to cover the maximum that would occur. There are various confusing and imperfect things about the scale, but the intent and actual use is irrefutable. It's not merely that above F5 hasn't occurred but that it won't because the way it's designed F5 is the maximum that can occur and the maximum that anything is ever rated.

To introduce elsewise is confusing and pseudoscientific. In the context of the development of the scale it is appropriate (hence my not refusing its mention in the F-scale article itself, and the rewrite of that will better explicate things), but not for actual tornadoes. Evolauxia 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I compromised from "maximum" to "maximum possible" to cover that Fujita had further subdivisions extrapolated from his formula, but these were never intended to be used and specifically were (and are) stated to not occur. F0-F5 is very clearly defined as the rating system, designed to encompass the wind speeds that actually occur, and F5 is the maximum possible damage that can occur. Evolauxia 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It still leaves, at least me, with the impression that thats where it stops... the wording I have in there shows that this is the higest rating ever recieved. What, exactly, is wrong with it? -AKMask 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But the scale does stop there, the extension was just an academic exercise, never meant for use or "public release". To infer that there can be anything greater (as well as the specific wind speed ranges) is, nevertheless, one of the problems with the scale and why it is being upgraded. As for the wording now, it's cumbersome, unnecessary, and misleading because there are many other F5s and there can be nothing greater but it infers that there can be. The change to "maximum possible" mitigated the perceived problem that the scale does not end at F5 whilst succinctly saying that it was rated the maximum possible, which it was and is. Minimizing this problem as much as possible is the reason I (and tornado and damage experts) are so stalwart, I don't like being so unyielding on such a small thing as a few words, but it's necessary. We're both concerned about accuracy and clarity, but from differing perspectives; I've tried to explain decently well and with sources. Evolauxia 08:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The very fact that the scale does go higher eliminates the possiblity that F5 is as high as it goes. The scale *IS* cumbersome, I completely agree. The Saffir-Simpson scale only goes to Category 5, defined as a windspeed/damage profile and all speeds higher then that, but unfortunately, the Fujita scale does not do this. Instead, it continues up. I'm not implying that this wasnt an extremely intense, probly the most intense tornado ever. But to imply that the Fujita scale stops at 5 is demonstratably false. There is no possibility of the statement that F5 is the maximum is truthful. Our own article lists higher force ratings in its info-graphic, going to F6. You can say what you want about them being academic, and I agree with you. But to deny they exist is easily shown to be false. False information does not belong in an article. -AKMask 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no way to ascertain what was the strongest tornado, this isn't about this tornado as the strongest or one of the strongest, no such claims are made, it's about the Fujita scale and this tornadoes rating, which I've explicitly demonstrated the maximum possible rating is F5. Again, the wording maximum possible eliminates ambiguity and most accurately (and succinctly) guages the event, it denies nothing and states nothing false, quite the contrary. Evolauxia 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I researched, I'm pretty sure that, although the theoretical F1 to F12 scale corresponds to wind speeds, the operational F1 to F5 scale (or the new one, at least) is based on damages at those wind speeds, such that no tornado can be assigned anything higher than F5 damage. I'm not so sure about the "old" operational scale though. --AySz88^-^ 03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with AySz88. To my knowledge, the Fujita scale has always (operationally) been a damage scale, which makes arguing about the theoretical "speed limit" of these tornadoes merely academic. You can see from these two links from the National Weather Service [1], [2], the odds that they would designate a tornado as "F6" is basically zero, as there's absolutely no operational precedent for anything higher than an F5, where "incredible phenomena will occur." To get back to the heart of the argument, I'm not sure what the wording should be, but in my mind the odds that they would designate a tornado anything higher than an F5 are about the same odds that they would consider the Saffir-Simpson scale inadequate and designate a storm as a "hypercane." EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

I doubt you intended it, but that quote advocates that the entire scale is theorecticle, and should not be used. If you seriously agree with that, just remove any reference to the speed. I prefer to stick to the truth. -AKMask 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we're getting somewhere. It's just a paraphrase of what I've already said and what was available in the stuff I cited; it is not a wind speed scale, it's a damage scale. There can be no greater damage than F5, thus that is the maximum possible rating (and the scale is clearly defined as such). Evolauxia 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the new scale that comes of use in 2007 is defined as that. The older fujita scale is, as already shown, a 0-12 affair. We could, as somewhat poked at by me, just list it as F5 in the article, with a link back to Fujita scale. It would alleviate this whole mess. -AKMask 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't considered or challenged what I've said or cited which contradicts your concerns and clearly shows how the original F-scale actually works. Please address that, not ignoring it and maintaining the same argument --where that argument is addressed.

The remarks of C. R. Allen, past president of the Geological Society of America, are pertinent when one attempts to predict upper bounds of natural phenomena. Allen (1974) emphasizes that no amount of sophisticated statistics or extreme value theory can throw much light on the nature and frequency of large events [...] All of the aforementioned tornado risk models are based on the F-scale intensity ratings [F0-F5] (Fujita, 1971).

Abbey, Robert F. Jr., and T. Theodore Fujita (October 1975). "Use of tornado path lengths and gradations of damage to assess tornado intensity probabilities". Preprints, 9th Conference on Severe Local Storms, Norman, Oklahoma. American Meteorological Society, Boston, p. 286-293. (Satellite Mesometeorology and Research Project Paper 138)

Evolauxia 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

F5 - in reality

Fujita created his scale to better document tornado activity. From his words, the scale is an "estimation" of winds speeds from engineering damage data. Fujita extended the scale out to F12 for scientific and data collection purposes. As everyone agrees above, F12 gives us mach 1 speeds. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The original F-scale wind speeds were just guesses fitted to a graduation of 12 parts following the end of the 12 part Beaufort scale to Mach 1. There was no hard engineering analysis initially, and the scale of use was clearly defined from F0-F5, which covered the maximum possible damage as well as the maximum expected wind speeds in any tornado.

There was engineering analysis done throughout the 1970s culminating in detailed reports as well as recommended wind speed scales for specific damage such as Dames and Moore (Abbey, 1976) and Twiddle (1978), which are quite similar to Enhanced Fujita Scale (McDonald, 2004), incidentally.

Fajita, T.T. (1971). "Proposed characterisation of tornadoes and hurricanes by area and intensity". SMRP Research Paper 91, University of Chicago.

Doswell, Charles A. III (2003). A Guide to F-Scale Damage Assessment. NOAA / NWS.

Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What his scale has given us

In its simplest usage, it gives us a direct way to document wind damage from tornadoes.

It has also given us a data form of occurences of tornadoes, such that we can say that a probability of occurences exists. Meaning that we get a probability curve directly related to the strength of tornadoes to the number of occurences. Several websites depict this fact.

The largest number of "witnessed" tornadoes occur in the F1 to F2 range. This drops of significantly as we go through the F3 and F4 range. So much so, that F5 is extremely rare. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The damage itself is directly observed, but it's an indirect inference of intensity and wind speed, ergo one cannot make comparisons between events or do risk management/climatology or valid statistics assuming they are DIRECTLY attained. An important caveat, but otherwise the jist is correct, that rough intensity distributions (cognizant of the shortcomings) can be inferred and modeled. Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Probability Speaking

The term "witnessed" is also important, such that ruling out 318mph or higher is not accepted. But it is accepted that it becomes highly improbable, not impossible (mathematically, statistically).

Impossibility would have to derive from some documentable evidence. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the scale of use is designated as F0-F5. That covers both maximum possible damage as well as maximum expected wind speeds. We can't know the maximum of any natural phenomena with certainity, and we sure don't have observations of many tornadoes. We have no observations of the complete structure (including wind speeds) of any tornado at any moment in time, much less the entire life cycle of even a single tornado. What we have to go on, both in the original and the Enhanced Fujita Scale is a clearly defined scale. Yes, there are mathematical models but they're not rigorously based on hard data and aren't "fact", they're numerical guesses; they're academic exercises just as the original wind speed formula was. For the topic at hand, it thus is irrelevant, the scale is defined F0-F5 and was designed to cover the maximum possible wind speeds in tornadoes but those wind speeds were guesses. You are good to point out the need for documentable evidence as well as the importance of our reliance on what is observed. Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

But! do not forget that windspeeds exceeding 230 mph (top of EF scale) have been measured, which still gives the old scale qualification, and disqualifies the new scale due to another factor. The question that disqualifies the new EF scale is this: Have you ever seen F5 damage on an interstate highway overpass?

The question is intended to use either scale's method of quantifying damage into the F-scale (or EF-scale) - Hard Raspy Sci 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The new EF scale

It should be noted that the new scale reduces the windspeeds for F-levels above F3. The main reason this was proposed was due to the overestimation of wind damage to buildings and the interest in maintaining historical record keeping.

The truth of the matter is that F5 is the highest "sensible" damage estimation, anything above you need direct measurement access. So operationally speaking and because of physical evidence, old F5 became the top rating. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It "reduces" the wind speed because that is what incurs the described damage, the old scale correlated wind speeds were incorrect. Correct, it operationally became a purely damage scale; but even from the initial paper, the scale was designed to cover the maximum expected wind speeds (and possible damage) and F0-F5 were specifically defined for actual use.

The new scale just adjusts wind speeds for damage, eliminating confusion of the original F-scale formula and F0-F12 graduations derived therefrom, as well as adds DIs/DODs. The wind speeds will continue to be adjusted, though in-situ or remote measurements may be used on rare occasions that they're available. Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Winds for each F-level from old F-scale to enhanced-F

• (E)F0 — raised
• (E)F1 — lower bound raised, upper about the same
• (E)F2 — lower about the same, upper bound is lowered
• (E)F3 — all lowered, upper bound splits old F3 in half
• (E)F4 — upper half of old F3
• (E)F5 — lower half of old F4

- to extend -

• (E)F6 - ~230 to ~270
• (E)F7 - ~270 to ~310

But, after Feb. 2007, the new EF scale will make the 1999 Brideport-Moore-Oklahoma City tornado an (E)F7 tornado...chew on that one... — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The continued emphasis on wind speeds is potentially disconcerting, it's still a damage scale. The wind speeds are just correlations to damage, and are still guesses, albeit very good guesses from top damage analysis and meteorological experts with tremendous experience and knowledge, obtained via a process of "expert elicitation" but still not rigorously tested physically or even numerically.

Moore would not be EF7 because it's a damage scale (and defined as EF0-EF5) with an open-ended maximum wind speed range. Even if it were not a damage scale, again, there is no way to discern what would be the top possible. The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is open for this reason, arbitrary cutoffs aren't scientificly valid.

Your extension of wind speeds is not based in science or on how the EF scale works; I assume you're just showing the difference in wind speeds but you have no basis for those thresholds, and your extension should not be misconstrued.

There was a formula computed to cleanly connect the F-scale and EF-scale to maintain the tornado database:

y = 0.6246x + 36.393; R² = 0.9118

where x is 3-second gust speeds adjusted from original F-scale fastest 1/4 mile speeds, and y is the derived EF scale 3 second gust speeds.

Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Umm. Moore was radard at 319 MPH. Thats more than an EF7, so I dont like the EF scale at all. Also, the Xenia '74 tornado was almost rated an F-6 by Fujita himself. Since he wasnt sure, he defaulted to rating it an F-5. And the tri state tornado was one tornado.

Maximus 100 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Maximus_100Maximus 100 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Mostly, I do agree with what you say, but I disagree with the old scale from an operational standpoint and I disagree with the new scale from a scientific viewpoint. But my extension above is scientifically based, ...I really hate open-ended bins... ;)

I also disagree with EF scale, because EF scale is not scientific, its political. It also makes the housing industry look good. Review the scale again, and think about what I just said. - Hard Raspy Sci 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The new EF-scale isn't political, it's scientific. You don't need a 300 mph wind to blow a house apart and scatter the debris. Also, the often-quoted 300+ mph wind recorded in the 1999 Moore, OK tornado doesn't really count. That wind was measured several hundred feet above ground level where the wind is much stronger. We don't know what the actual wind speeds are at, for example, the roof level of houses in a strong tornado, or any tornado, really, which is why the EF-scale wind ranges are educated guesses and also why it is open-ended at the top. --anon 4:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (or mar 16 because of the international dateline. I am not using auto-timestamp because it is stupid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.8.136 (talk • contribs)

The EF5 rating is defined as "Winds > 200 mph". EF5 is the maximum rating that exists. Thus the arguement is laid to rest. -Runningonbrains 18:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Right!! That's exactly my point. You don't need 300mph winds to knock down a house, thus the jab at the housing industry is appropriate! OK? And please have the guts to sign something, and don't re-iterate common knowledge to drive a slippery slope or a red-herring. The new scale benefits the housing industry. Why? Ok, I'll spell it out. It lowers the apparent maximum, making their product look like it can handle higher wind loads before failure. Failure = damage + deaths. The wind speeds haven't changed, the scale has been "watered down". Also, there has not been any scientific correlation that the old scale is wrong. So, yes, political. -- Hard Raspy Sci 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The new EF scale was created for several (good!) reasons: first and foremost, it gives damage surveyors vastly more damage quantifiers from which to estimate a rating; the old system could only be efficiently implemented by observing damage to "well-built" houses, trailers, and barns. Thus damage to such structures as schools, churches, shopping centers, etc. could not be used to classify damage unless a detailed engineering survey was done. If anything, tornado damage ratings will become MORE quantitative in the future, and this is a good thing for meteorologists and climatologists, because even with minimal experience with site surveys, those responsible for surveying damage can come to their conclusions with much less subjective judgement.

Secondly, as stated earlier, several engineers have come to the conclusion that winds in Fujita's original scale estimates are not needed to do the damage to which they were originally assigned. This DOES NOT (and I can't stress this enough) mean that meteorologists all of a sudden consider 200 or so mph winds to be anywhere near the upper limit of tornado wind speeds. Of course, much higher winds have been indirectly (through Doppler radar, as well as photogrammetry in the 1970s) observed several times. Keep in mind that the Fujita scale, strictly speaking, rates DAMAGE, not tornadoes. It's more proper to say, "the tornado caused F5 damage" rather than, "the tornado was an F5". This is a very important distinction. By lowering the bounds for upper-level ratings, the EF scale establishes what engineering science has come to accept: you don't need 300 mph winds to do F5 damage. That's not the same as, "the F5 tornado couldn't possibly have had 300 mph winds". What the new scale basically says is that once you reach a certain wind speed, you can't do any worse damage to regular structures. You can't distinguish between damage done by 200 mph winds as opposed to that done by 300 mph winds (buildings like reactor cores at nuclear facilities are engineered to withstand winds in the old F5 range, but they are rarely struck by such winds and are of little use as a damage rating tool).

Also, I don't quite follow your logic that lowering the bounds for wind speeds that can do extreme damage somehow makes contractors "look good" - if anything, it makes them look WORSE, because it establishes that houses apparently CANNOT withstand as high winds as the old Fujita scale supposed. Some engineers have opined that certain homes can show F4-F5 damage after being exposed to winds as low as 160 mph - hardly the wind speeds that you would associate with monster events like the Moore tornado. So I really don't see an agenda at work here. I've read much literature on the revising of the Fujita scale, by prominent severe weather experts and engineers, and they pretty well agree that the old scale gave too MUCH credit to an average home's ability to withstand high winds. How is that catering to the construction lobby? CapeFearWX 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: F and EF use damage to extrapolate wind speed. You look for certain damage indicators and judge the rating accordingly. When you're surveying an area where the asphalt has been sucked off the roadbed, the cars chopped into confetti with the bare chassis wadded up into a ball, and strong, recently built frame houses obliterated leaving a smooth slab and no piece of recognizable debris, the concept of EF6 seems a teensy smidge unnecessary. I mean, what would it have to do, open up a rift in the space time continuum and cast a town into The Void? EF5 is the limit for a reason. 69.19.14.30 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a numbers-fap thing. There's a certain vocal minority in tornado studies who simply cannot comprehend the idea that the F and EF scale are correlated with observed damage, not measured windspeed. If you clocked a tornado at Mach 1 in an empty field, it's still an EF0 unless it produces observable damage that supports a higher rating. The real problem, of course, is that that these same people have percolated their ideas down into the population at large and now the NWS is under political pressure every time they have to assign an EF rating to a storm which has killed a bunch of people; the Joplin fiasco is a great example (NWS surveys and declares an EF4, people shriek in indignation that the worst thing in their lives is not the worst thing on the scale, politicians get in on the act and demand they redo the survey, NWS is a government agency and dutifully follows their orders, and magically an EF4 becomes a max-scale EF5). Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

map of trail?

Cropped version with state level details

Would it be possible to include a map of the trail of the tornado? - SimonLyall 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is one from the NWS Paducah site in the Wikimedia Commons link. It's not easily readable without enlargment, but will have to do for now, it's more a less a version of the same original work and I've never found anything better. It also doesn't go well in the article at the moment, but will when more text is added. I prefer to keep the newspaper headline in the infobox.

FWIW, a detailed reassessment with comprehensive surveys and interviews is recently ongoing. Some refinement of the track is quite possible. Can't say more until it's published. Evolauxia 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this version would provide a decent overview of the storms 3-state track. --Dual Freq 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

That could do for now. I'll try and make a similar map of the outbreak paths eventually. Evolauxia 01:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand

This one of if not the most important single tornado in history. The article should be expanded to include more information about the aftermath, as well as its historical scope. Actually, pretty much any non-trivial info that can be added should be added. Also, yes, a map of the track would be perfect. -Runningonbrains 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

If others don't get to it first, I intend to expand it significantly when I find time. I've provided quite a lot of source material online, as well as other stuff which can be found in libraries or otherwise obtained. Evolauxia 10:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The writing on Wikipedia about weather is so atrocious (essentially word tornadoes - laughable hyperbole, terrible usage errors, grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes, chaotic presentation) that I would hesitate to encourage more of it. Antimatter33 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Info on other tornadoes

There is information on the main tornado online with which to expand the article, but the other tornadoes will be hard to find. Here is info on the other tornadoes, for the event table. I'll provide the data, someone please format it into the tables.

times local; only curt note of most significant damage listed for now due to copyright issue

1. F2; Montgomery County, Kansas; 0510; unknown path length/width; 0k, 0inj; homes and gas station damage at and around Dearing, Kansas
2. F5; Reynolds-Iron-Madison-Bollinger-Cape Girardeau-Perry, Missouri - Jackson-Williamson-Franklin-Hamilton-White, Illinois - Posey-Gibson-Pike, Indiana; 1301; 219 mi (1200 yd ave width); ≥695k, 2027inj; moved ENE near Ellington, Missouri to about 10 mi NE Princeton, Indiana
3. F2; Colbert County, Alabama; 1645; 12 mi (60 yd ave width); 1k, 12inj; moved NE at Littleville, Alabama where damage and casualties at gas station, homes, and store occurred
4. F4; Sumner, Tennessee - Allen-Barren-Monroe-Metcalfe, Kentucky; 1700; 60 mi psbl tornado family (400 yd ave width); 39k, 95inj; moved ENE from near Buck Lodge, Tennessee (8 mi N Gallatin, Tennessee) to Beaumont, Kentucky, homes leveled in many communities
5. F4; Harrison County, Indiana - Jefferson County, Kentucky; 1715; 18 mi (1200 yd ave width); 4k, 60inj; up to mile wide, moved ENE from Muckport, swept away entire farms near Laconia and Elizabeth, Indiana before ending just south of Louisville, Kentucky
6. F3; Williamson-Rutherford, Tennessee; 1745; 20 mi (200 yd ave width); 1k, 9inj; major damage to homes in Kirkland, Tennessee incurring all casualties
7. F3; Jefferson-Oldham, Kentucky; 1800; 10 mi (unknown width); ≥3k, 40inj; moved NE from east edge of Louisville, Kentucky to near Pewee Valley, Kentucky; at least dozen homes destroyed
8. F3; Bedford-Rutherford, Tennessee; 1810; 12 mi (300 yd ave width); 2k, 15inj; moved ENE from near Unionville, Tennessee to 2 mi NE Fosterville, Tennessee, at least 10 homes destroyed
9. F3; Marion-Washington-Mercer-Jessamine-Fayette-Bourbon, Kentucky; 1830; 60 mi tornado family (300 yd ave width); 2k, 40inj; moved ENE from western Marion County, Kentucky, passing near Springfield, Kentucky, ending past Lexington, Kentucky

Source: Grazulis, Thomas P. (1993). Significant Tornadoes.

Evolauxia 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Good find! That is really hard to find for such old outbreaks! (Of course, there were probably more F0 and F1 tornadoes that went unreported) CrazyC83 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the F-scale breakdown, but if someone adds a summary table of the actual tornadoes, that would be great. And yes, there were undoubtedly more tornadoes, both weak and strong, this event had several large, long-track, intense tornadoes (at least 3 violent!). I don't know how many, but the number of other tornadoes is very likely not insignificant. Additionally, it's likely the path length of the Tri-State will be extended. Evolauxia 10:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Important information missing?

I've heard from various professors and scientists about the "Tri-State" tornado, and I understand that there are competing theories about what actually happened. Modern research seems to have suggested that episodes like this are actually a family of tornadoes borne out of a cyclical supercell event, but there are weaknesses in applying that theory to this case... Also, detailed maps of the path are broken where the tornado was not tracked. The national weather service mentions that scientists are uncertain as to what actually happened:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pah/1925/wi_body.php

Anyway, the point is that I think we could add a section devoted to theories about this phenomenon. Does anyone have any information about this? Alternative theories? I'd like to hear about that. In any case, it would be good to have a more detailed map of the damage but I've only seen that in textbooks that I no longer own.

RobShepard 01:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There has been little evidence of breaks in the path, actually none save some scant, uncompelling stuff in a couple areas of the path. The problem has been that it doesn't match with our past and current understanding of supercell morphology/dynamics and tornadogenesis as well as lack of any other tornadoes approaching that length or duration. This has changed some as recent tornadoes have occurred with very long tracks, as well as very long-lived supercells (which doesn't connect directly, we've known about long-track tornado families, but is evidenciary of our changing understanding of supercells/severe convective storms and tornadoes). There has also been very thorough new research on the path of the tornado, including a detailed resurvey as well as significant attempts to locate survivors and other additional information. As of this writing, no evidence of a break in the path had been found, and the path length may actually be extended! Evolauxia 10:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• There are many eyewitness reports of which I have heard and read that the Tri-State Tornado from a distance had the appearance of a giant, roiling dust storm. It was not until the storm was nearly engulfing them that they realized it was actually a tornado. Even if it had been a dust storm, it would have been exceedingly unusual for that area of the US (I lived for many years in one of the towns that was in the Tornado's path). Edeans 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Article's name

To comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events), I changed the article name (tornado is now lower case). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

While this is applicable in most cases, this tornado is known by the proper name "Tri-State Tornado". I have reverted the move. -RunningOnBrains 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Only after making today's name change (in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado's naming convention) did I notice the above comment from Runningonbrains. I also fixed double redirects. I'll leave this alone for now vs. doing a revert myself. I left a note on Runningonbrains talk page to give him an opportunity to comment as there wasn't any intent to create an edit war. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

It's all good. I think this article is a clear example of when NOT to use the DATELOCATIONTYPE format for storm naming. I thought the naming convention stated that, when an official/accepted name for an event/storm already, that name should take precedence, but apparently it doesn't. I propose that it should, especially when no date disambiguation is needed. I have posted on WT:SEVERE to gather opinions. I'll revert/maintain the current title depending on consensus there. Thanks!-RunningOnBrains 03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

PS Here are some links which name the event simply "Tri-State Tornado", just in case you were wondering: NOAA, Popular Mechanics, National Geographic, Book written on the topic, Website dedicated to storm's history. -RunningOnBrains 03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Runningonbrains that standard naming don't always apply and that in the case of recognized names that Wikipedia should retain the respective standard name. There are complications, even for that, of course, such as the multiple Palm Sunday outbreaks in which a case a year is appropriate. The St. Louis - East St. Louis Tornado is another example where there are multiple tornadoes striking those cities, but the 1896 event is usually the one people are thinking of (and for which books are written). There's also the matter of capitalization for events that are proper noun.

And thanks Rosiestep for all your work over the months keeping articles up-to-date with policy. That work is laborious and these complications make it that much more so. Evolauxia (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll numbers don't add up in section on Illinois

I could be reading the section wrong but the article states that 695 people lost their lives in total in the entire path of the tornado. When you come to the section on Illinois you read that 34 were lives were lost in Gorham, that 541 lives were lost in the towns of Johnston City, Murphysboro, De Soto, Hurst-Bush, West FrankfortZeigler, Eighteen, and Crossville. Next 22 lives are lost in Parrish bringing the number to 597. Finally, this may be splitting hairs but the article states that 234 were killed in Murphysboro. I know that this 234 is included in the 597 but the phrase is a bit ambiguous leading the reader to think that the number should be more like 831.Mortsey (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Meteorological details

• March 2013 Reanalysis of Meteorological Events associated with the 1925 Tri-State tornado (and overall outbreak)
• The 1925 Tri-State Tornado Damage Path and Associated Storm System

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete references

I'm paring down the references but wanted to paste the obsolete historical refs here rather than simply delete them.

• Burgess, Donald W. (2006-11-10). "The Tri-State Tornado of 18 March 1925, Part I: Re-examination of the damage path". 23rd Conf. Severe Local Storms. St. Louis, MO: American Meteorological Society. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
• Maddox, Robert A. (2006-11-10). "The Tri-State Tornado of 18 March 1925. Part II: Re-examination of the weather conditions supporting the parent storm". 23rd Conf. Severe Local Storms. St. Louis, MO: American Meteorological Society. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Fujita, T.L. (1987). "U. S. Tornadoes, Part 1". SMRP Paper 218. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Brodt, Jan (1986). "The Tri-State Tornado: March 18, 1925". Weatherwise. 39 (2): 91–4. doi:10.1080/00431672.1986.9930169.
• Tecson, Jaime J. (1982). "Climatological Mapping of US Tornadoes During 1916–1980". 12th Conf Severe Local Storms. San Antonio, TX: American Meteorological Society. pp. 38–41. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Wilson, John W. (1971). Illinois Tornadoes (Circular 103). Urbana-Champaign, IL: Illinois State Water Survey. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Changnon, S.A. (1966). "A great tornado disaster". Weatherwise. 19 (2): 56–65. doi:10.1080/00431672.1966.9930508. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Root, Clarence J. (February 1926). "Some Outstanding Tornadoes". Mon. Wea. Rev. 54 (2): 58–60. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1926)54<58:SOT>2.0.CO;2.
• Young, H. (1925). "Report on Effects of Tornado of March 18, 1925". Journal of the Western Society of Engineers. 30: 373–96. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Root, C.J. (1925). "The Tri-State Tornado of March 18, 1925". Climatological Data, Illinois Section. U.S. Weather Bureau: 12a–12d. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Henry, Alfred J. (April 1925). "The Tornadoes of March 18, 1925". Mon. Wea. Rev. 53 (4): 141–5. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1925)53<141:TTOM>2.0.CO;2.
• "Severe Local Hail and Wind Storms, March, 1925". Mon. Wea. Rev. 53 (3). U.S. Weather Bureau: 130. March 1925. doi:10.1175/1520-0493(1925)53<130:SLHAWS>2.0.CO;2.

Evolauxia (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tri-State Tornado. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606103251/http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html to http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031201949/http://www.tornadoproject.com:80/toptens/1.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 18:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tri-State Tornado. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/1.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016135615/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilfrankl/subjects/tornado.htm to http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilfrankl/subjects/tornado.htm

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) 01:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this article about a tornado, or a tornado outbreak?

I note this edit by Evolauxia with edit summary "there's a format to tornado event articles. this was a major outreak of which the namesake "tornado" was one family".

Firstly, it is marked as minor, which you shouldn't do to a revert unless you are pretty sure the original edit was in bad faith.

On the substance of the change... Most of the articles about tornadoes are about tornado outbreaks, but the title of this article suggests it is about a specific tornado. From the comment, I am guessing Evolauxia wants this article to be about the outbreak as a whole. If so, we should move the article to something like Tri-State tornado outbreak.

However, I would prefer to keep the existing title - the tri-state tornado was much bigger than the other tornadoes of the outbreak - 695 of the 747 deaths - so it makes sense to have that as the main subject and mention the wider outbreak lower down the article.

This wouldn't be the only article where the title is a single tornado. e.g. 1924 Lorain–Sandusky tornado, which was the year before, and New Orleans tornado of 2017.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1925tornado-p2o-b.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 1925tornado-p2o-b.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Article's Name (2021)

I feel like "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" isn't a very recognizable title for such a well-known event. Shouldn't the name be changed to be a more widespread title, such as "Tri-State Tornado Outbreak"? The title, "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" is bland and not much more recognizable than "Tornado Outbreak of March 17, 2021", so it should be changed to be a bit more recognizable. This is what was done with the Andover tornado outbreak to make it a more recognizable title. Chrispanda (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Update (12/2021)

Unfortunately, the events of the December 10, 2021 outbreak has broken the record set by this tornado/outbreak. National Weather Service has confirmed the track for the Quad-state tornado being around 240miles long, making the Tri-State tornado now the second longest tornado track recorded. SIMplMn9 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

References

The number of deaths in Griffin Is..?

Why is it written in our photo card that 44 died in Griffin, but in article 46? i not know -- 212.164.204.112 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022

Can the Infobox mention the tornado outbreak caused 751 deaths? I got that by adding up the total deaths which is allowed per WP:CALC. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done SpinningCeres 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Found this image of the Tri State Tornado

The image that I had found from the blog site.

This was taken when the Tornado was nearing at its peak width around the Hamilton and White counties. I had found this in the blog site you can find on this link.

Link to the source of the Image https://fox41blogs.typepad.com/wdrb_weather/2015/03/the-great-tri-state-tornado.html

Don't know if this is real or not? But if that is the case then it is one of the rarest image of the Tornado itself. But what do you think? - CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Update

This image was faked therefore I had revert it by removing the image in the page itself. Sorry for anyone who thinks this is real.CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Where did you see that the image was faked? I’m actually curious because on the website you linked, WDRB Meteorologist Jeremy Kappell actually stated it was a photograph of the tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

It really the 1979 Wichita Falls, Texas tornado that was photoshopped to the extreme.

https://twitter.com/300mphef5/status/1462557510032838660?lang=ar-x-fm CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@CrusaderToonamiUK: (Courtesy ping) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)