This is anarchive of past discussions about1925 Tri-State tornado.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Welp, here we go with another minor tornado debate. While the tornado is widelyaccepted as a F5, it neverofficially received that rating and thus should not be marked as such in the infobox. Pinging@Departure–: and@MarioProtIV:.While I'm here, I'll say that it shocked me how this tornado never had an article till yesterday, I mean 700 deaths and just a section???EF514:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
In lieu of an official rating, I believe the widespread consensus is to include a widely accepted rating. See also1883 Rochester tornado. In the US, the NWS hasn't rated a lot of older tornadoes like the ESSL or other agencies / individuals do, but remember that marking it as EFU or FU is also incorrect, as FU is an actual rating for no damage observed and unless a source can be found for FU, it shouldn't be marked as such. A blank infobox is also not ideal when it accepted to have produced F5 damage, a claim that has been reiterated by experts and agencies.Departure– (talk)14:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
EFU / FU is an unsourced rating, EF? / F? is also less than ideal. Perhaps we can use Unofficial F5 rating in the infobox instead? That doesn't display well in the infobox, though. Maybe this is something we should take to the creators ofTemplate:Infobox weather event. Ideally, it should both display that the tornado's accepted rating is F5, while making clear the rating is unofficial. Perhaps an |unofficial-rating= parameter could be used.Departure– (talk)14:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. The confusion with readers will be that the infobox doesn't clarify whether the rating is official or unofficial, and makes it seem like the tornado was an F5, which it technically wasn't.EF514:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Grazulis himself has stated as such, and it is well-known that the 695 figure is not accurate. You can even just add up the death tolls in each area that are confirmed and it gets you more than 695. 12 in MO (officially), 37 in Gorham, 234 in Murphysboro, 69 in De Soto, 14 in Bush, 192 in Franklin County, 65 in Hamilton and White Counties and 46 in Griffin and 45 in Princeton.Dovah12333 (talk)20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Have you read anything I just said.....the death toll of 695 is derived from the red cross and their own report they made in 1926 which you can find online for yourself. But the true death toll is greater than this. I am aware of the citations on wikipedia and the rules, hence why I said "likely greater", but you can just do the math of the figures in each location....its more than 695.Dovah12333 (talk)20:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I have added anoriginal research tag after the "At the Orient Mine, a large multi-ton coaltipple was blown over and rolled by the tornado" sentence in the article. From off-Wikipedia communication, I have information this may be false. This sentence, however, is cited by a book I do not have currently in my possession. I will make a note to try to see if my local university library has this book to double check this information. If someone else happens to have this book in there possession, I would like this sentence to be double checked if it is actually cited by the book reference.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
@TornadoInformation12: This may be a hopeless verification check, but Wikipedia's XTools let me know youadded the sentence(back in August 2013) with theThe 1925 Tri-State Tornado's Devastation in Franklin County, Hamilton County, and White County, Illinois 2012 book reference. I do see that through the revision ages, that reference was removed from that sentence and it is now cited with theDeath Rides the Sky: The Story of the 1925 Tri-State Tornado 2011 book reference. Do you, by chance, have either of those two books? Until TornadoInformation12 or another editor can verify that sentence is cited from either of those books, I'm going to go ahead and remove the sentence, given it has switched physical book references over the last decade and I do not know which editor in the last decade switched the physical book references.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)20:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
This image shown here is photoshopped and not the real tri state tornado
Concensus is to remove the image but include a mention of the Wichita Falls tornado without a citation perWP:IAR and common sense.EF517:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For the 2nd time, I have re-added the NFF. When it was re-added the first time, we all stated it was a fake image. However, all our knowledge that Kappell was wrong is based onoriginal research and does not qualify to remove it. So, I am re-adding the NFF unless we get a RS which directly says the photo is false. We need a directly source saying Kappell is wrong, not Wikipedians ourselves saying it is wrong. Weird case ofverifiability, not truth. There is a reason the caption says "claimed" and the photo is not used in the infobox. Despite knowing it is false,we cannot use our own research to justify the removal of stuff on Wikipedia, and we need an RS which counters Kappell's claim.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)14:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merely taking the two images side by side will show its photoshopped The cloud formations are the same the funnel little second leg is the same•Cyberwolf•talk?15:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
I mean my eyes are reliable sources and he is wrong overlay images same tornado same ground same foliage and same foliage on the right bottom hand corner•Cyberwolf•talk?15:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG. The difference here is, the blog is from areliable news organization,WDRB. It is not a self-published blog like onBlogger. It is written by a meteorologist for the news organization itself. Either way, here is the thing, we as Wikipedia are not saying the photo is of the tornado. We, as Wikipedia, are merely saying WDRB meteorologist Kappell says this is a photograph. Whether it is right or wrong is technically irrelevant. Wikipedia only cares aboutverifiability. For example, right now, theTornadoes of 2022 article hasknown false information and false statements on it. However, there is noreliable secondary sources that exist to counter the RS claims, so they remain. You can see that situation explained here:verifiability, not truth in action.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
then why say it is a photo of the tornado so we just mislead people knowingly cause some fucking dude from a reliable source says yes.Polybius (urban legend) is what happens when we do this shit. Im here to maintain the legitimacy of this encyclopedia•Cyberwolf•talk?15:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The caption in the article is: "The photograph claimed byWDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell to be the Tri-State tornado". Wikipedia is merely saying Kappell says this is a photograph of the tornado.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
cyberwolf, I have a compromise. The photograph itself is not going to be in the article. However, the following sentences will still be in the article, "According to theNational Weather Service, no photographs or film reels of the Tri-State tornado were taken or are known to exist.[1] The tornado was frequently described by witnesses as...[...]...However,WDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell claimed in 2015 to have “one of the few photographs that have been preserved of what is believed to have been of The Great Tri-State Tornado”.[2][3]. That maintains the integrity of Wikipedia'sverifiability policy/no original research policy and also helps not trick readers into seeing the actual photo from Wikipedia. Everything mentioned there is factually true, since we are quoting Kappell.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes protocol needs to be broken this is a scenario where this needs to be removed. You admit the info is false then stop adding it I have the fucking original picture from noaa and it dates to 1979•Cyberwolf•talk?15:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
So what we have is a blatantly fake image where the image creator doesn't own the copyright, and Wikipedia keeping it because of a lack of claims against the image's efficacy. I think it shouldn't be included based on the serious doubt of the existence of any images of the tornado if nothing else.We all know it's fake and including it would hurt the article, but policy dictates that it's allowable and others want it included, which bothers me to no end.Departure– (talk)15:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@WeatherWriter: I have literally sent you a link showing the exact same image, from an NWS webpage. I think we shouldWP:IAR here, since it's obviously the Wichita Falls image. Policies can have exceptions, and this is an obvious exception. Feel free to get a 4O (fourth-opinion).EF515:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
This situation is killing any hopes of this article making it to good or featured status, which kills me as this is top-importance and could very easily make it there. I think we should get some higher-authority eyes on this situation; I feel we've reachedWP:BLUE levels of disagreement with policy.Departure– (talk)15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
if I die on this hill knowing what I did was right, I will die with grace. No tears no anger a simple goodbye to all the good people I met and the lessons I learned from the various people from all backgrounds and ethnicities. The real fact is I am not afraid of unblockables, ANI. The real thing I’m afraid of is the ever so degrading nature of the information revolution, and most notably myself. To survive and enjoy editing Wikipedia you will have to fight through definite challenges from users who seem to big to fall but that couldn’t be further away from the truth•Cyberwolf•talk?15:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
WP:IAR does not mean single-handedly overturn a community consensus via RFC. IAR can be a justification in a discussion or to do an edit, but right now, if myself or anyone goes to change the false info on theTornadoes of 2022 article, they are undoing the community consensus by themselves. We can use IAR here to remove the photo, but I am against removing the quote by Kappell, since there is nothing factually wrong with that sentence/quote in the article. The compromise we did (i.e. the photo itself is not on Wikipedia) solves the whole concern you had.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The compromise, as much as I'm in favor of it, is unfortunately not going to stop any other editor from potentially re-adding it later down the road and standing on the basis of policy. This issue may very well come back at twice its current vigor with editors much less willing to compromise and more willing to die on this hill. Short of contacting a news agency to get a secondary source to comment, there exist enough personal accounts of the tornado that free use media can be created from just descriptions. I'm not a good artist but I might get to that in my free time.I'll also argue that I think we're giving too much credit to this blog's image anyway. Even if it was true, wouldn't it have reached the ears of a higher-quality source by now?Departure– (talk)15:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Gonna have to agree; this is getting way out of hand. While I'm at it, I'll go add a bunch of fake tornado images to articles and challenge their removal, since "there's no evidence of them not being of the tornado".EF515:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Everyone, calm down. Discussion is as good as done. The fake photograph has been removed from the article. Per this discussion here and several editors going on aboutWP:IAR (Ignore All Rules), the article now reads: "According to theNational Weather Service, no photographs or film reels of the Tri-State tornado were taken or are known to exist.[4]...[...]...However,WDRB meteorologist Jeremy Kappell claimed in 2015 to have “one of the few photographs that have been preserved of what is believed to have been of The Great Tri-State Tornado”.[2][5] Although, this photograph is of the1979 Wichita Falls F4 tornado and not the 1925 Tri-State tornado." The ending sentence was added per this discussion ofignoring all rules, specifically thereliable source needed guideline. Hopefully everyone is happy and satisfied with the article now.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)15:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
As I stated in a previous comment, I personally would be interested in creating a mockup image of what the tornado may have actually looked like based on descriptions and CC-0'ing it for general use, if nothing else for the sole purpose of killing this argument as soon as possible (I wasn't party, is it true that the Dead Man Walking photo was removed from NFF use at Jarrell despite being the subject of discussion?).
March 18, 2025 is going to be the 100th anniversary of this tornado, which has the strongest argument for being the worst in United States history, so as I told@EF5: we should really be working on getting this article toat the very least good article status. It's at a good length to where I believe it'd be better brought to featured status and put on the mainpage on March 18.Departure– (talk)15:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Well there is a website of the art of the Tri State Tornado made by Todd Atteberry shown here.
Argh, no copyright data for attribution! Maybe thiscould be added as an NFF, but I'll take my chances with creating my own free CC0 image instead.Departure– (talk)15:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I don't think it's a painting at all. It's another tornado image superimposed onto an image of the area of Southern Illinois where it happened. You're not looking at the Tri-State or an original depiction of it.Departure– (talk)16:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
If you're looking for similar tornadoes, from the descriptions I've heard my mind goes to the aforementioned Wichita Falls tornado, as well as Joplin 2011, Belvidere 1967, Custer City/Hollister 2024, El Reno 2013, Will County, IL 2008, Parkersburg 2008, and, most of all, Lemont, IL 1976. There's a really good video byTed Fujita himself on that onehere (note, this has been AI upscaled to a higher resolution, and when the tornado appears at 3:36 the resolution is very bad. A much better version of just the tornado video existshere and it very well fits the description of "boiling clouds" given for the Tri-State).Departure– (talk)17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
There was a tornado there? Could you link to an image or video? You're from there, my area of expertise is Illinois tornadoes.Departure– (talk)17:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
How dare you call it Mayfield! It's like calling this one the "Murphysboro tornado"...
Ah, forgot about that one indeed! From what I can tell, that's closest to Custer City and definitely ticks the boxes for the amorphous and non-traditional aspects of the Tri-State. I've gotten a very basic pencil illustration down but I'll keep working towards digitizing and perfecting my illustration of the Tri-State over the coming weeks. From what I've drawn so far, it's been converging towards the appearance of the2013 El Reno tornado, which I suppose as the other most infamous tornado in US history is fitting.Departure– (talk)17:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
That more or less fills the same void as the Will County example. Overall, I'd say the closest appearance-wise would be either Lemont or El Reno, and the closest behaviour-wise would be Mayfield (and yes, I'm going to call it that).Departure– (talk)18:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but there's times where youshouldn't use IAR, making an image based off of things a bunch of random people have said is OR, same as "this is an image of the Tri-State tornado!"EF515:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am. What kind of cloud? How do you even picture a "wall of destruction"? Was the wall made of brick, or stone? It's too ambiguous.EF516:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Regardless, I do think this article lacks illustration that a free image would fill, so I'm going to, if not die on this hill, at least ask perhaps at the help desk if this is acceptable practice.Departure– (talk)16:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Water Survey images
While the artist's reconstruction, editor illustration, and fake photo discussions have quieted down, I've discovered a few images on this page are sourced to anIllinois Water Survey paper that isn't an NWS publication so I've nominated said images for deletion. The images are the diagram of the tornadocyclone and the annotated path of the tornado's track.Departure– (talk)15:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
@EF5:, in case you're wondering, I don't think anyone owns the actual shape of the tornado, nor its track, so free media could be made (and hopefully, if made, would be less controversial than other editor-created media. I'm going to make that image no matter if it ends up on this page or not.)Departure– (talk)15:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am planning on reviewing this article for GA Status,over the next couple of days.Thank you for nominating the article forGA status. I hope I will learn some new information, and that my feedback is helpful.
If nominators or editors couldrefrain from updating the particular section that I am updating until it is complete, I would appreciate it to remove a edit conflict. Please address concerns in the section that has been completed above (If I've raised concerns up to references, feel free to comment on things like the lede.)
I generally provide an overview of things I read through the article on a first glance. Then do a thorough sweep of the article after the feedback is addressed. After this, I will present the pass/failure. I may use strikethrough tags when concerns are met. Even if something is obvious why my concern is met, please leave a message as courtesy.
Best of luck! you can also use the {{done}} tag to state when something is addressed.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)
Please let me know after the review is done, if you were happy with the review! Obviously this is regarding the article's quality, however, I want to be happy and civil to all, so let me know if I have done a good job, regardless of the article's outcome.
Within a matter of minutes, two people were killed and 90% of the town was leveled. - presumably 90% is an estimate, or something that someone said? I doubt you could get an exact figure.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Continuing to the northeast at an average speed of 62 mph (100 km/h) (and up to 73 mph (117 km/h)), the tornado cut a swath almost 1 mi (1.6 km) - there needs to be some consistency of units, sometimes you use mph, but then km/h, why not mp/h or kmh? You use mi and km here, but also earlier you use "miles". Just needs to be consistent.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused. It's for international units so both readers who use the metric and imperial system can understand.EF517:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
As the tornado charged across Hamilton County south of McLeansboro, the tornado reached its greatest width at 1.5 miles (2,400 m). Dozens of farms, homes, schools and churches were swept away, 28 people were killed, and nine more of those injured later died. - something is broken here.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Done Changed to "mortally wounded" for the first, and "later died of their injuries" in the second.EF517:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
"amorphous rolling fog" or "boiling clouds on the ground", - when you state a quote, you really should put the source where it comes from immediately afterwards (at the end of the sentence), so we aren't confused as to where it came from.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)16:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Per overwhelming community consensus above, it should remain that way unless a source is found. I'm fine with removing the sentence if it conflicts with the review.EF517:03, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Per consensus,WP:IAR was invoked. This was specifically done based on a consensus. Personally, that single sentence should not be enough to not pass this article, as a discussion with several editors were in complete consensus to “ignore all rules” to add that sentence.TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
So, don't worry about this not making GA status because of this - it won't make any difference. I just wonder if we even need to mention the photograph at all if no sources bother to contradict it, and it's clearly not true. Maybe a better solution is to have the whole claim as a note, rather than prose. I don't see a primary source (in the context of substantiating a claim made by the subject) to be particularly sufficient to prove what he's said anyway.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)18:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Death count
As some other user interjected, the death count is disputed. I also noticed theMonthly Weather Review issue from the time marked the deaths as 742; as this is a primary source as reliable as any other, should this be included?File:The Tornadoes of March 18, 1925.pdf; the table on Page 4 indicates tornado A (the Tri-State, NOT the whole outbreak) as 742 deaths, 2771 injuries.Departure– (talk)02:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Both the 695 and 742 would come from the U.S. government. Two thoughts: (1) Set the death toll to be a range…i.e…695–742 (citing both the NWS webpage for 695 and MWR for 742) or (2) Bullet point (similar to2013 El Reno tornado’s infobox wind speed) noting the distinction between the U.S. Weather Bureau’s count and modern-day NWS count…since both are the “official” sources for the info. Thoughts on either of those?TheWeather Event Writer (Talk Page)02:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Argh, it just clicked! The expanded figure is almost certainly due to uncertainty about the tornado's path length. What in the1925 Tri-State tornado outbreak is marked as multiple tornadoes of the same family is marked as just one here.
...actually, it appears only the Tri-State tornado itself from its family is on the outbreak page. It's not clear at all whether or not this was the family as a whole or just the single tornado for the inflated figure - it could easily go either way. This whole situation explains why I focus on post-1950 outbreaks where information fog like this hardly exists.Departure– (talk)02:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: moved to1925 tri-state tornado. The proposed target did not gain the consensus of the editors commenting here, with many preferring either retention of the old title or a different target. Cinderella157 demonstrated that the proposed target was not the common name, and both it and the original title are natural, thus negating the WP:NATURAL argument. On lower/upper case, there is a 5:3 majority for lower case and I find the arguments to retain upper case have been opposed by counter-argument, supporting evidence and reference to the manual of style. Other issues, such as the word order, were raised but I don't see clear consensus or argument in favor of one or other. Both forms ("1925 tornado" and "tornado of 1925") are natural and idiomatic. I am closing this requested move with the minimal change of upper case to lower case with no prejudice against the opening of a new requested move to discuss word order or the opening of a new request on the grounds of consistency if the related requested move atTalk:2021 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 16 February 2025 closes with a contradictory outcome.DrKay (talk)15:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Now the GAN will likely fail because the article is no longer stable. Anyways,support proposal, andstrongly oppose uppercase of "tornado" per typical naming conventions.EF521:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Would a requested move stop a GAN? I thought that was only for edit wars. It's not like it's going to be moved in mainspace unless this passes as moved.Departure– (talk)21:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it would. A calm discussion of what the article's title should be doesn't appear to be a violation of the stability GA criteria.Departure– (talk)21:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. I'm probably overreacting, but this destabilized the day-to-day of the article.EF521:55, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call this a significant day-to-day shift. It's going to have one word in the title change, and that's only after the 7 days / extended if necessary discussion closes, and that's assuming this even passes. This is by no means a disruptive content dispute nor any form of edit war. Your GAN's going to pass stability, don't worry.Departure– (talk)21:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
Support – the current mixed capitalization makes no sense; there are areas called "Tri-State", but this is not one of them. Might as well use the conventional proper name of the event if we're not going to use the properly lowecase descritpive title "1925 tri-state tornado".Dicklyon (talk)21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
AlternativeTri-state tornado of 1925. Looking at google scholar, there are 399 hits for"Tri-State tornado" 1925 but only 49 hits for"Great Tri-State tornado" 1925. The latter is also variously capitalised. This result indicates thatGreat Tri-State Tornado (however capitalised) does not meetWP:COMMONNAME. There are 107 hits for"1925 tri state tornado" and 84 hits for"tri state tornado of 1925". However, there are many more cases where the date is given more fully (March 18 or 18 March and sometimes usingon instead ofof). Perusing the search results, it would appear that the year following rather than preceding is probably more common but regardless, the proximity of the year indicates it is an integral part of identifying this event. Google books is not particularly useful in this case as there are (relative to google scholar) few hits and even fewer where the search terms can be seen in snippets.
As I noted in the RM discussion (linked above) the key search term istri-state tornado and placing the year first in a title reduces the ability of the Wiki quick search to identify this event compared with the year following the key search term. In terms ofWP:CRITERIA, the alternative is at least asWP:NATURAL,WP:RECOGNISABLE andWP:PRECISE as the existing title. It is negligibly lessWP:CONCISE but with a benefit in searching.
On the matter of capitalisation, PerMOS:HYPHENCAPS, we don't cap after the hyphen unless this is accepted as a word normally capped likeRoman.State is not such a word. This is our house style. In reviewing the search results, neitherTornado norgreat (in the noms proposal) are consistently capped in sources and, perWP:NCCAPS andMOS:CAPS, neither should be capped here. AsDicklyon observes,there are areas called "Tri-State", but this is not one of them - ie this is not an area that would routinely be capitalised asTri-state per usage in sources and in general, the termtri-state is a descriptive term for the confluence of three states, of which there are many in the US. It is made specific through context, where the three states are identified. In general, is not consistently capitalised (seehere). While this is not an issue in the proposed alternative, it is an issue for capitalisation in prose and for other alternatives whereTri-state is not the first word of the title.Cinderella157 (talk)05:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Addendum To be clear on the advice atMOS:HYPHENCAPS, The lead atMOS:CAPS states:There are exceptions for specific cases discussed below of whichMOS:HYPHENCAPS is one such case. The guidance explicitly states that we follow such guidance regardless of the general advice given in the lead therein - ie our house style prevails. There is a clear link explicitly established betweenWP:LOWERCASE atWP:AT,WP:NCCAPS andMOS:CAP.Cinderella157 (talk)03:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Support original title and oppose this constant war on capitalization from the same editor. The term "Tri-State tornado" with capitalization is more established than the term without capitalization; sources such as newspapers from the era and beyond primarily do use this capitalization.CutlassCiera22:30, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by "support original title"? The page is already at its original title. As far as I can tell, it has never been renamed. If you want to keep it where it is, shouldn't you be saying "oppose" rather than "support"? — BarrelProof (talk)14:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Interestingly,Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events)#Tornadoes listsTri-State Tornado as the first example in the guideline on tornadoes. If we were to ignore that, the guideline seems to requireTornado of the tri-state area of 1925 which is really awful. I find the naming convention for events produces inconsistent results. This raises the question whether we are required to use the title that’s provided as an example in the guideline even when it goes against (local) consensus and other guidelines.--MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Well, you're typically first in line to decry n-grams as unreliable. Given that the book stock used for generating n-grams after 2019 (and probably even in the phase a few years before that, which brought coverage up to 2019 from, IIRC, 2010) has included more and more iffy material (apparently including magazines and a bunch of self-published, e.g. CreateSpace, Amazon e-books), I've been critical of them myself, at least with regard to certain uses (e.g. where we need to see what RS are doing versus what the everyday vernacular is, and sometimes we need to do both for different purposes, e.g. the latter may matter more when we're trying to figure out what users are most likely to be searching for). However, n-grams and books at all are hardly the only source material. A Google Scholar search, mostly limited to higher-quality sources, shows capitalization all over the map on this[1], including a lot of "tri-state tornado" (plus some weirdness like "tri-State tornado"?!). "Tri-State Tornado" is more common, but if you look closely you find that majority of occurrences are in title-case titles/headings/captions. Internet Archive Scholar produces essentially identical results, just in a different order. (But it doesn't appear possible to link to those results because query details are now stripped from the URL; I've filed a loud complaint about this. For now, you have to go tohttps://scholar.archive.org/ and manually search on"tri-state tornado".) The results with regard to "tri-state" are even more lowercase-leaning when this term is taken more broadly and not just in reference to a particular weather event[2][3], so I stand firmly on my analysis of this as an adjectivized common-noun phrase that is a descriptor not a proper name.If we were to stick with "Great Tri-State Tornado", I would agree that's a proper name (it's an evocative/metaphorical/subjective appellation, like "Pacific Ocean", "Rocky Mountains", "Great Fire of London", etc.), though I'm skeptical there's a good reason to not write it as "Great Tri-state Tornado" and avoid an unnecessary capitalization. But that's not the COMMONNAME anyway, so immaterial. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
See, the case is a stretch. Good try though. N-grams certainly have a major place in these discussions, and I'm in favor of using them in most "cases". The n-grams in this instance are so one-sided that your first sentence (incorrect by the way) seems a distraction from that fact. Per the nomination,Great Tri-State Tornado still seems the best overall choice.Randy Kryn (talk)00:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Article improvement suggestions
Working on getting this to FA quality. Some things that I need to work on before formally putting forth featured article candidacy:
Lede
"killing 695 people and injuring 2,027 more" - verify sourcing, find the figure in the 700s from MWR, add a note if necessary.
"Despite not being officially rated, it is widely accepted to have been equivalent to an F5 on the Fujita scale" - add these ratings into the article if they aren't already there
"The tornado touched down in Shannon County, Missouri" - this shouldn't be said in Wikivoice as the place of touchdown is disputed. This entire paragraph should be changed to what is most likely and what is accepted.
"The tornado killed at least twenty farm owners in southeastern Illinois and southwestern Indiana, more than the combined total of the next four deadliest tornadoes in the history of the United States. The tornado killed a combined total of 695 people, the majority of which occurred in Illinois" - redundant paragraph, farm owners don't seem too relevant, "next four deadliest" doesn't seem too relevant either if there isn't a source etc.
Meteorological synopsis
Take another look at this and ensure sourcing,WP:DUE, and the Tri-State supercell should be given its weight.
Tornado summary
As with the lede, explain the situation with the touchdown (better than WV assertions and rebuttals).
More inline citations. More media (self-created if necessary).
Cite the image of the artist's depiction. I don't know if the source is reliable either, so be sure to tread carefully with what claims it cites.
Give weight when naming the deceased victims.
"The heaviest loss to befall a single family was exacted on that of Caldwell storekeeper Isaac 'Ike' Karnes" - according to who? Give this attribution and claims.
"The destruction of the town was so complete that many residents and businesses moved on, and the town was never rebuilt" - needs an inline citation, and perhaps a bit of elaboration.
"41 people were killed at Griffin and in the surrounding areas, another 202 were injured, with five later dying, bringing the death toll at Griffin to 46" - change this wording to be less awkward. As this tornado killed just so many, maybe naming anybody that isn't explicitly mentioned as notable in a reliable source isn't going to be happening.
"In Indiana, at least 95 (and probably more) perished" - reword.
Aftermath
TheFatalities section is awkwardly worded and a bit repetitive. Maybe add another image or move the existing one upwards otherwise.
"Fires erupted, growing to conflagrations in some places, exacerbating the damage" - I didn't know there were fires following the tornado and I think that this needs more than one sentence of prose about it.
"Total damage was estimated at $16.5 million in 1925 dollars; adjusted for increases in population/wealth and inflation, the toll is approximately $1.4 billion (1997 USD), surpassed only by two extremely destructive tornadoes, each of which was posthumously rated F4, both in the City of St. Louis, in 1896 and 1927" - Joplin? Topeka? Why isn't this on the costliest US tornado template?
TheLegacy section should ideally have non-meteorological legacy added to it (i.e. in local or popular culture).
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Simplistic visualization of the Tri State Tornado
I think because there is difference theories of the Tri State Tornado and its behavior. I had purpose that a simplistic visualization of the different models of the Tri State Tornado like what the Titanic page did with the two theories.CrusaderToonamiUK (talk)19:24, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Requested move 19 March 2025
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove reviewafter discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was:moved toTri-state tornado of 1925.not moved.Consensus is not a counting of votes, but a weighing of arguments. Two distinct but related issues were discussed in this RM and the preceding: whether this topic is primary as far as tri-state tornadoes go (and therefore, whether it is necessary to include the year) and how the name should be capitalized.To begin with the simpler matter, supporters of the proposed move made a compelling argument that this article isprimary with respect to long-term significance, but failed to compellingly demonstrate that it is primary with respect to usage. Supporters produced many recent news articles suggesting primacy, but opponents noted that their utility here may be diminished by a recency bias. I will note that the question does not seem to have been seriously investigated beyond that, so the whole matter is rather unclear. In any case,WP:PTOP indicates that it is sometimes possible to establish a primary topic with only one criterion, so barring further evidence, I think we can say that is the case here. This could be seen to suggest a consensus to drop the year from the title; in practice, however, most participants' stances on the inclusion of the year were very closely related to their stance on capitalization, so let me put a hold on that and consider the other question.Three variant capitalizations were considered. In terms of votes, the most widely supported title was "Tri-State Tornado", fully capitalized as a proper name. However, this was also the least well-supported name evidentially. Supporters of this title argued that "Tri-State Tornado" is a sufficientlycommon name to override thehouse preference for sentence case, but this argument was refuted in both this RM and the preceding. Some participants argued that "Tri-State" should be capitalized but not "tornado," asserting that "Tri-State" is almost always capitalized on both sides of the hyphen, particularly in the context of tornados, but again, both RMs produced sufficient sources using lowercase "state" at least sometimes to cast doubt on this argument. I therefore find a consensus to fully retain sentence case here.Let us return now to the question of the year. While I wrote earlier that the arguments seem to establish this topic as primary, only one editor actually expressed a preference for both retaining sentence case and removing the year. This suggests that despite all arguments, most editors do not consider this tri-state tornado sufficiently primary to distinguish it from other tri-state tornadoes without further markers (such as full capitalization).WP:DETPTOP says that, in the final analysis, the question of primacy is ultimately the editors' judgement. Because there seems to be little support for removing the year without further changes to the title, and there is a consensus against said further changes, I also see a consensus against removing the year at this time.Having said all that, I do see some small lingering preference forTri-state tornado of 1925 over the current title, so I will move the article there.(closed by non-admin page mover)—Compassionate727(T·C)15:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)Edit:by request, I have reverted the modification and returned the article to its original title. If people still wish to consider the question of whether 1925 should go at the beginning or end, it should be subjected to a full RM.—Compassionate727(T·C)16:34, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Strong support - Last close was bad and this is a viable solution. See previous RM for my reasoning. Not convinced by the opposing arguments. Clear-cut case ofWP:CCC, so "precedent" and the former discussion is moot here.EF519:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Support - 2021 TOR is not often called Tri-state IMO at least to the extent that the 1925 tornado is. 1925 is undoubtedly more significant by orders of magnitude.Wildfireupdateman :) (talk)20:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment While it might be tempting toWP:SNOW close this, I'm going to re-ping the dissenting votes that were a part of the previous moves:@SMcCandlish,Cinderella157, andDicklyon: The COMMONNAME in reliable sources has changed, so we would appreciate your participation in this RM.Departure– (talk)17:26, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Much of what I've heard in that RM revolves around the fact that another RM could be opened later on. The 100th anniversary brought on a wave of new reporting that can change the perception of the common name. Besides, in my opinion, that MR is messy and stale - opened a month ago, with no clear consensus whether to formally endorse or move. A new RM with new information is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward.Departure– (talk)19:16, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
A proposal can be withdrawn if no support for it has been expressed by others, but not if support has been expressed. That would give proposers a special right to override the opinions of others. SeeWP:RMEC for RMs. (And I think the same spirit applies if alternative suggestions are being discussed; the original proposer should not be able to close down the discussion of suggestions from others.) — BarrelProof (talk)21:18, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose and procedural complaint: the move review is still open. The RM above proposing "Tri-state tornado of 1925" as the most supported title from the previous RM has been withdrawn pending that move review. I'd support that one, or even the "Great Tri-State Tornado" which is more like a proper name. But as we went through before, there are lots of reasons why "Tri-State Tornado" is not a plausible proper name.Dicklyon (talk)02:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose Notwithstanding that the MR is still open. A selection of sources from the recent anniversary inherently falls toWP:RECENTISM. A selection of sources to support a premise is not objective, unlike a survey of news sourceshere, in which we do see sources explicitly using "1925 tri-state tornado" - ie, with the year. It is also not surprising that the year is being dropped because it is otherwise implied by reference to the 100th anniversary or the date more fully in close proximity. We do not rely on how sources close to the subject view this (ie from the affected area) but how sources more generally (at arms length from the subject) refer to it. The former are notindependent of the subject. The nom does not address the matter ofWP:PRIMARY nor the argument forWP:LOWERCASE in the previous RM. No matter how capitalisedTri-state Tornado is equallyWP:RECOGNISABLE (WP:COMMONNAME). LOWERCASE (also part ofWP:AT deals with how a proposed name perWP:CRITERIA is capitalised.Cinderella157 (talk)02:50, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose I would support Tri-state tornado of 1925 or Tri-State tornado of 1925, per my comments at the current and open move review. Tri-State appears more consistently capitalised by sources whereas tornado is not consistently capitalised. Tri-State Tornado would be a firm no because the entire name is not a proper noun - if there's consensus to drop the year, which I disagree with, Tri-State tornado would likely be the best name. There are other tri-state tornadoes and the 100th anniversary of this one was last week, so there's some recentism here.SportingFlyerT·C00:53, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, and I'll never understand why some people say that the tornado of 2021 is more important than the tornado of 1925. 700 deaths vs. ~10, and just look at the damage differences.The Seal F1 (talk)05:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment/Question: If the articles name changed again, will the article for the [2021 Tri-State Tornado] keep its name, or will it be renamed? Just asking as it does kinda bring up the question of should it be named as such.--Halls4521 (talk)03:30, 28 March 2025 (UTC)
Comment on procedural objection: I have already voiced a procedural objection, but this parallel discussion has now continued for more than a week despite that objection. I find myself in the confused position of wondering whether to engage in this parallel discussion of the merits of a proposal. So far, I have refrained from doing so. — BarrelProof (talk)18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
Support, the other main Tri State tornado caused barely over 1% of the fatalities as this tornado. An obvious primary topic.24.46.185.18 (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)strike sock --Ponyobons mots18:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
(Strong) oppose. We just went through a massive lengthy and contentious RM to arrive by compromise at the present title, why has this been proposed yet again? The current title complies withWP:NCE andWP:NCCAPS, there is no need to use a name which purports to be a proper name, when sourcing is so mixed and the proposed name isn't really strongly established. — Amakuru (talk)10:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose capitalization support dropping year There were two issues: whether to include the year and whether to capitalize. I think it's clear that this is the primary topic, and between this RM, the move review, and the previous RM, there seems to be a clear consensus to drop the year.I'm not convinced on the capitalization. Scott and Amakuru bring up thewider consensus ofWP:NCCAPS which no supporter has addressed directly, and the only argument I can imagine from the comments so far is to misapply COMMONNAME to claim that "Tri-State Tornado" is used most commonly in sources and should be the accepted capitalization. Except that if you look at the sources (like Scott did) they're not even consistentwithin an article about capitalizing "tornado"---this one,this one, andthis one (all from the nomination) aren't consistent with "tornado" versus "Tornado". If the caps version is so common as to be a proper name (theWP:NCCAPS test) how are local news stations (supposedly most familiar with this event) not even consistent in capitalizing it within an article? Our own article on the2021 Tri-State tornado (mentioned here and in the move review as a reason to use uppercase) doesn't capitalize all three words like was proposed here. The opposition to capitalization is far more convincing on the facts and has wider consensus behind it, even if it'snot ahead in the bean counting so I agree with them. I'd prefer "Tri-state tornado" based on the discussion, but I'd be okay with "Tri-State tornado" as well.On the procedural objections, the move review is 3 months old and I'd just ignore it at this point (WP:NOTBURO) and close based on this discussion since it has the widest participation with the most outside input.—Wug·a·po·des06:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is anarchive of past discussions about1925 Tri-State tornado.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Done, Removed.EF523:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
