Talk:2011 Joplin tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2011 Joplin tornado was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 9, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed
September 17, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Is the Lucas story relevant in the Meteorological section?[edit]

i think this might need to be moved to the casualties section. i doesnt seem like a discription of damage to me. Spcgettel (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last part of the Response section seems biased and one-sided[edit]

"The United States Congress debated whether to supply a special-purpose, $1 billion federal aid package for Joplin, ensuring that existing budget funds for FEMA and other federal agencies involved in disaster relief would not be exhausted during the fiscal year. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated that an aid package would only be permissible if supported by budget cuts elsewhere. Congressional Republicans correspondingly proposed a $1.5 billion cut to an existing loan program intended to promote fuel-efficient vehicles.[21]"

While there is truth to that, and it is backed up with an article, it still sounds very biased, one-sided, and an attack on the Republicans in Congress. It is the way that it is worded that is the problem. It sounds like a Democrat wrote that to try to make the Republican in Congress look evil and uncaring.Bjoh249 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...But it's the truth. If a Democrat had done such a thing, I'm sure it would be stated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.121.162 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but why does it even have to be in there?? Why just not say the government provided aide like in all disasters. That sounds like personal rip on the Republican party by a Democrat.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the government isn't providing aid yet, and that's why. It's not a rip, its a fact that relates to the disaster in Joplin. As much as i hate politicizing disasters, by democrats or republicans, I think this is a significant event in the recovery, that i believe it shoudln't be changed. 24.101.121.162 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tone is far from neutral. Include date of Congressional funding provisions and amount, date and location of Presidential visit. Everything else (inclusion of Congressional budget debate without current fiscal context, President Obama's cancelled trip) is at best surplusage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.112 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite image[edit]

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

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

Fujita Scale Links[edit]

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

  • From the Fujita Scale article: "Several countries, including Canada and France, continue to use the original Fujita Scale." Also, the Enhanced Scale can't be used in article on tornadoes that happened before the changeover. Abductive (reasoning) 01:49, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map of path available on Jasper County website[edit]

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

There's also a map here. Pfly (talk) 04:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And also, Jasper County put their GIS polygon into a Google Maps type thing, http://www.jaspercounty.org/tornado.htm Pfly (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The survey remains incomplete though, so the track will likely back up to the west and extend east. It is certainly possible it was a long-track tornado connected to the Wentworth tornado as well. Also it is unlikely that it made that hard curve, but rather it is likely it was an extremely wide tornado in the eastern part of the surveyed track. CrazyC83 (talk) 04:45, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. Still, it seemed to me that until we know more it would not be appropriate to say it continued into Lawrence County, and perhaps even alarming to some people (ie, people from Lawrence County or with friends/family there). I admit I was a bit alarmed reading that--as part of my extended family is from southern Lawrence County. I agree that it does seem likely it extended farther east, but the way it was phrased, and in the lead, unsourced, didn't seem appropriate. Pfly (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought your comment had something to do with my removing Lawrence County from the lead. Rereading I see that may not have been the case. Pfly (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Official rating[edit]

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

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

Impact: Confused rating[edit]

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

I really don't see the confusion; the paragraph is describing the damage in different parts of the city. The source was a bit ambiguous, but I have changed it to a better link.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 10:41, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's moot now. NWS Springfield has upgraded it to EF5. God, it's 1953 all over again, isn't it? rdfox 76 (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free image[edit]

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

May 1971 tornado[edit]

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

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

Hospital Damage[edit]

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

The problem lies in obtaining a free image of the damage at the hospital. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done ;)intelatitalk 02:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

info box[edit]

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

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

Contradictions Regarding Casualties[edit]

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

Two glaring inconsistencies:

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

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

Deadliest since 1947?[edit]

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

I don't think there is conclusive evidence either way (no aerial surveys, for instance), but the deaths were recorded as being a single tornado, which is why I think it is listed as a single tornado on the deadliest list. Glazier-Higgins-Woodward was before modern record-keeping, and so NOAA probably went with how sources at the time recorded it. Note that some of the others higher on the list are suspicious for a variety of reasons (for instance, the Great Natchez tornado almost certainly had a higher death toll than is recorded.) Angiest (talk) 17:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, even if we were to say that it was not a single tornado in all those places, we don't know where all the deaths occurred well enough to say what the death toll should be; it's entirely possible it's still higher than Joplin; 107 were killed in Woodward alone.
That reminds me of something: Do we have any statistics on single-city deaths? I know the Tri-State Tornado killed 234 in Murphysboro, Illinois which is the highest single-city tornado death toll, but this has to be getting close to second.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of tornado victims?[edit]

Would it be a good idea to create a list of the casulties in a subarticle?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be a good idea to do so, to do so would clutter up the article. A comprehensive list on where the casualties were might be better, though. --Hourick (talk) 06:40, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a memorial. If you start these types of things, then were do you stop? Maybe we should list everyone that died in WWI and WWII and other wars....uh no. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about an entire list of names, but it could be interesting to note WHERE the body was found. I think that information would be difficult to get, though as only public officials might have that information, and it depends on how studious the people collecting the information would be. I'm sure the weather and disaster geeks would love it for the data points alone.--Hourick (talk) 06:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No — even as a sub-article. It's unnecessary, unlikely to be consistently sourced, and a bad precedent to set for storm events. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Travelling Debris (Receipt)[edit]

This article claims that it has since been discovered that the receipt did not indeed travel this distance through the atmosphere. Purdue University made the following statement...

"The receipt from a Joplin, Mo., tire store that made its way to Indiana was not deposited by the May 22 tornado. Upon further investigation another explanation was discovered. The receipt was left by a visiting relative who later recalled the Joplin purchase."[1]

--greek lamb (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, I've removed it from the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Joplin tornado debris didn't go 500 miles". UPI.com Science News. UPI.com. Retrieved 28 May 2011.

101 confirmed dead[edit]

As of 11pm Sunday, The Missouri Department of Public Safety reported 101 confirmed dead. video. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advance Warning[edit]

Does anyone have information on what advance warning was given and when? This would be a useful addition to the article. --Crunch (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Riverton, KS they reported a funnel cloud at 5:25. Nine minutes later, at 5:34, there was another funnel reported in Galena, KS. The NWS in Springfield issued a Tornado Warning at 5:17pm for the greater Joplin area. I don't have the link to the actual warning though. 24.101.121.162 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings are apparently archived online now: [2] and scroll through the "Event number". It can also be conveniently overlain with storm reports and NEXRAD data at the time of issuance.
  • [Tornado Warning #31] was issued at 5:17pm local time for Joplin, Missouri.
  • At 5:22pm a funnel cloud was reported over Riverton, Kansas, about 6 miles west of the westernmost part of Joplin.
  • At 5:34pm a funnel cloud was reported over Galena, Kansas, about 3 miles west of the westernmost part of Joplin.
  • At 5:41pm there were numerous reports of the tornado on the ground, with power flashes indicating damage.
A detailed damage survey has not been posted, but I presume we will get better information on the exact lead times from that. Areas on the west side of town got about 15-20 minutes warning, while areas on the east side of town got more.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Casualty figures need to be updated[edit]

Quote from Reuters article:

"On Tuesday, the department reported that 146 sets of human remains, some from dismembered bodies, had been recovered. [Seth] Bundy [spokesman for the MO Department of Public Safety] said all of those remains have been linked to the 134 confirmed dead."

http://www.dps.mo.gov/news/template.asp?ID=N01110019

--70.166.133.138 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Policeman Jeff Taylor Killed By Lightning[edit]

The name of the policeman Jeff Taylor killed in the relief effort when struck by lightning was deleted here. I understand the logic of not wanting to include casualties. However, Taylor got among the most publicity http://www.google.com/search?q=Riverside+Police&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGHP_en___US432#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=R5W&rlz=1R1GGHP_en___US432&biw=1366&bih=568&source=hp&q=Riverside+Policeman+Joplin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=711da0863f755a publicity of any individual killed in the tornado or its follow up]. Flags across the state were lowered to half mast by governor order.Americasroof (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just dislike the idea of naming victims unless they were notable in their own right (i.e. already have a Wikipedia article). It seems unfair and arbitrary to list some victims of a storm and not others, even if the individual(s) has (have) received significant news coverage. I'd be interested to hear what others have to say, however. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 19:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would say unless the person is a major political figure (or dare I say a well-known or established actor/actress), names of victims should be avoided. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a brutal interpretation. At the risk of outing a hero already in the article. Christopher Lucas was the guy at the Pizza Hut who tried to shut customers in the freezer until he was killed. His heroism was enough commented on by Obama during his visit. The only other person who achieve a degree of heroism in the event was Officer Taylor (for which the whole state officially mourned by governor order). I think any reasonable reading of the history of the storm would include both those names. I agree that in most storms most of the victims probably do not achieve fame but both Taylor and Lucas achieved fame and considerably media interest for what they did.Americasroof (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The pattern of media coverage of a disaster is clear, they will always seek out one or a few heroes to spotlight for their actions or calm which possibly saved lives, especially if the person died in the process. For instance, just this year, the Rayne, Louisiana tornado had a mother who saved her daughter, the North Carolina tornado outbreak had the manager of a Lowe's store who saved people (and was also called a "hero" by the president), the southeastern US tornado outbreak had this police officer who saved his daughter, the 2011 New England tornado outbreak had a mom who saved her daughter, and even this Joplin tornado had this man who supposedly saved people at the Home Depot by herding them to safe areas before dying himself. Why shouldn't these people be memorialized as well? I'll tell you why: because this is an encyclopedia, and we shouldn't be arbitrarily turning it into a memorial. Notability is not inherited from one event, and you may think it cold, but these people's stories should appear in books and news stories, not an encyclopedia. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all of the instances you mention where heroism is involved in the storm, their names should be included in the story. This is a story about an event and such coverage involves WHO, what, when, where and how. Their names are just being mentioned. The standard for notability that would arise in a separate article is not as high. You guys do a great job in reporting on the mechanics of a storm. The articles are not complete though if they do not include a discussion of how it actually affected people on the ground.Americasroof (talk) 02:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll 151[edit]

Just FYI, local news ([3] and [4]) are reporting that more have died in hospitals, leading to a new death toll of 151. I would like to wait for more information before changing it in the article however. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado-related death toll is only 150; the 151 number includes the policeman killed by lightning Reuters artricle. Changing shortly. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's now up to 151 even without the policeman.Americasroof (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That article just fails to mention it. Officials are still including the policeman's death: "Joplin tornado's death toll at 153, city says". CNN. So tornado death toll is now 152. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 13:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody else from Missouri actively editing this article?[edit]

In looking at the history of this article, I don't see anybody else from Missouri actively editing here. Is there anybody out there?Americasroof (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I could start editing it if/when I get some more spare moments (my apartment was rendered uninhabitable (see below) and I only arranged temporary permanent housing a few days ago). Any big problems? Hga (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thrilled to have somebody else with Show Me credentials editing here (especially with somebody with Joplin links). It was getting pretty lonely. You sound like a bit of a newbie, don't discouraged. Just make sure you include links in anything you do and we will make sure the wiki police don't jump on you. There's a lot of amazing stories that haven't been documented here. Thanks and welcome aboard!Americasroof (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Joplin links", yep, born and raised in and have now retired to Joplin. My youngest sibling was born in the hospital that got trashed, me and the middle two in the old version of it. I'm not a newbie, first edit was slightly over 5 years ago ... and the neighborhood isn't what it used to be, shall I say. I'm not going to waste much time on this article, I'm no Wikilawer and have much more important things to like continuing to put my life back together. Maybe within 6 months or so (I'm still a Displaced Person), but on the other hand I'm trying to look forward instead of backwards. Hga (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Home Depot vs. the other 2 big box stores[edit]

While this obviously cannot be cited, I was in the apartment complex behind/east of the Wal-Mart (Plaza), in the southern most block of apartments, the ones closest to the EF-5 center (37°04′16″N 94°28′11″W / 37.071004°N 94.469794°W / 37.071004; -94.469794). While retrieving belongings I ran into a NOAA engineer (who I'm pretty sure was very real, e.g. he knew exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned a rare EF-4 in College Park, Maryland) who off the cuff (based on e.g. the bolts that gave way in the cell towers that bracketed my apartment stack) said that my block got hit by 100-120 mph winds and that the way above minimum EF-5 center was to the south ...maybe starting 500 feet at 20th Street. Based on extensive direct observation of this area I can say with fair confidence that the Home Depot and adjacent buildings got hit a lot worse than the Wal-Mart and Academy Sports big boxes to its north.

With tornadoes we're talking about situations where 500 feet can make all the difference in the world, e.g. if the center had been perhaps 500 feet to the north I very possibly wouldn't be typing this, according to that NOAA engineer who said my concrete shell apartment would have been flattened at best. So I'd say the criticism of tilt-up may be valid but comparisons of the Home Depot to the other two big box stores that got hit less worse are invalid. E.g. plenty of smaller concrete block construction buildings in the Home Depot zone were totally flattened at best (when I say "at best", a whole lot of high velocity debris were thrown around; I can provide high quality CC OK pictures of them and their effects taken by my brother with his Nikon DSLR if so desired, and some of the area around there). Hga (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me offer my own Original Research: Unfortunately we've stumbled upon an issue we haven't had to deal with in a while, but one I sense will happen again the next time a violent tornado kills many people in a single building. It is utterly impossible to engineer all structures to survive the most intense tornadoes. We can make storm shelters, which are small and highly reinforced, but a large warehouse-like building such as a Home Depot will be shredded by the most violent tornadoes (as you have observed first-hand). According to Grazulis (Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991) who based his figures on Fujita's own 1987 analyses, the expected recurrence time for a tornado causing 100 mph or greater winds in the Joplin region is about once in every 10,000 years; are we really going to require all buildings to be built to a standard above this? Talk about a way to drive up expenses for new businesses. Lives can much more easily (and cost-efficiently) be saved by building tornado shelters into these buildings, or just engineering a certain part of the building (say a break room or a walk-in freezer) to withstand tornado winds (and being sure every employee knows where these safe places are!). Media's just looking for someone to blame, as always. The engineers have a valid point, but we all have to realize that not everyone can afford a storm shelter, and people are always going to die in tornadoes.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed on all points; here right next to Tornado Alley (its eastern border is a very few miles to the west in Kansas) we have to make economic tradeoffs as described above, otherwise all the buildings would be bunkers fit for surviving nuclear weapon blasts. And while a lot of it was luck (e.g. just where the tornado hit vs. where the survivors had been herded to), it's pretty amazing how high the survival ratio at the Home Depot was; I'd heard word of mouth that 26 had died there and found that very believable based on how thoroughly it had been shredded as you put it. Heck, I've much more closely observed the Wal-Mart ruins and I'm very impressed that only 3 died with ~ 200 survivors. Most of it was twisted girders over rubble....
The point about shelters is spot on, e.g. an article can be dug up about a father and daughter who survived without injury because a 2007 or so tornado not far away had killed the mother and the first thing they did when the moved to Joplin was to install a $4,000 or so shelter ... which was absolutely the only thing standing on their plot of land. A lot of residential areas were completely flattened; again, the low number of deaths is amazing to someone like me who hasn't studied the wind dynamics of tornadoes, although a lot of credit goes to the local medical establishment and the tornado knocking out only one of our two hospitals; see this amazing account of a stormchaser who just happened to also be an internist: First Response Mode: May 22, 2011, Joplin Tornado. Also worth noting and something that can be cited with a little Google fu is how both official types and normal civilians relocated every surviving patient from St. Johns within 90 minutes (e.g. people who'd heard it was knocked out just showed up with their pickup trucks or whatever to do what they could). So spontaneously fast it took quite a while for quite a few people to find out in which area hospital their loved ones had ended up. Hga (talk) 12:18, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2011 Joplin tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm's comments[edit]

It looks good to me just from reading it, but before I even start actually reviewing I'm of the opinion that this nomination is premature given that NCDC Storm Data hasn't yet come out for May, meaning we don't have the final, official data on the tornado. I'm inclined to fail this for now due to that with renomination being recommended after shoring up the article with information/referencing from Storm Data when available, but I'll wait for a second opinion in case another reviewer thinks this article is complete without the Storm Data. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just of note, I have also tagged 3 dead references. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dead links fixed.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I second the motion that this is a premature nomination; heck, the death toll has gone up as recently as last week. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 11:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per multiple people, I'm closing this as failed since this is premature. This can be re-nominated in about a month or so, whenever things seem to stabilize numbers-wise. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri costliest[edit]

I just added an item about insurance payouts and Missouri history. The sources say the earlier record was a 2000 hail storm. That is clearly a mistake. The big hail storm billed as the costliest in history was on April 10, 2001. I included the NOAA report. It probably needs a wiki article.Americasroof (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll conflicts[edit]

The news articles cited by this article put the death toll of this tornado at 159, but as of August 10 the SPC lists the fatalities at 157. Should this article be changed to fit this? I would generally consider it the SPC be a more authoritative source than most news articles IMHO and this update is more recent than the latest revision of the dead toll in this article. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably 2 of the deaths were indirect. Once Storm Data for May comes out, we will know the truth. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have linked in the infobox to the NWS assessment which confirms 159 direct deaths. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 02:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why consider far distant sources "more authoritative" than local news reports that have been adding to those Federal government official death tolls with reports of people eventually succumbing to their tornado injuries? At least one of those was very specific about what happened (can't remember if it was "never came out of their coma" but it was at minimum nearly that sort of thing). As I recall (I'd have to double check this) the locally counted toll is 164 or 5. Hga (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
162 plus one St. Louis beacon. plus the Reuters article I placed in the info box.--intelatitalk 15:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The St. Louis Beacon, besides being rather far away from Joplin (nearly 300 miles away on the other side of the state) is using the reporting of a Washington, D.C. correspondent and the death toll is an aside to the article. And the article is somewhat bogus, in that the first time the tornado sirens went off was something like 30 minutes prior to when it hit my location just east of Range Line (that was some time after it started hitting Joplin hard to the west). The second time was about 10 minutes prior, that was followed by a report of a funnel cloud in Galena, Kansas just a few miles across the border and then anyone with weather sense could tell it was time to seek shelter.
In the three Joplin, MO tornadoes I've experienced ('71, '73 or so and '11) there was time for someone paying attention to the weather to seek shelter. In the first, the authorities failed to hit the sirens because they thought the tornado was moving away from Joplin but were obviously wrong. Even then, the one fatality was a man who got his family out of their mobile home and into a ditch, but just had to look and got hit in the head by debris. I say all this to point out that article in general, and the report it covers if the article is accurate, would not appear to be a good source. Hga (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the accusation that these sources are "far distant". Federal officials are very thorough in picking out the deaths that are caused directly by the tornado, as opposed to those that are not (heart attacks, CO poisoning from improperly used generators, etc.) while news sources tend to not make that distinction. I have changed the total to 162, which is the updated NWS total as of September 15 (http://www.crh.noaa.gov/sgf/?n=event_2011may22_survey#Joplin). -RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be the new damage total?[edit]

I found this from the SPC which puts the cost of damage at $2.8 billion. Should this be put as the new damage total? It's pretty close to the early estimates f $3 billion. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the figure could well be correct (damage was very extensive and somewhat beyond the earliest estimates, e.g. our brand new middle school was totaled although that was not apparent even at close observation from the ground) I can't say that table is really well sourced. Maybe you should try to find where whoever adjusted that table came up with the new estimate?
Also note that input from insurance companies is still ongoing, e.g. a few days ago I read that Goodwill (who's building on Range Line was severely damage but not "destroyed") is still fighting with their insurance company. I gather the settlements were pretty quick for the totally destroyed buildings but as for the ones outside the "catastrophic damage" zone.... Hga (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is the SPC not an authoritative source? TornadoLGS (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survival---or not---of Big Box Store Walls[edit]

Stcofire made this edit summary about a later reverted edit of his, "I was in this Walmart when the tornado destroyed it. The walls of Walmart and nearby Academy Sports also blown over and blown out. The walls hit by the tornado Did Not 'survive'."

Well, for the Wal-Mart judge for yourself: below the pictures headlined "Blown Away: The remains of this apartment block..." (which just happens to be my once and future apartment complex) you'll see pictures of first the Home Depot and then the Wal-Mart: "Wiped off the map: Shocking before and after images reveal how giant tornado ripped apart Joplin's city landmarks".

Note how for the Wal-Mart the right most, northern most, furthermost away from the tornado section (the grocery one) survived fairly intact. It has most of its roof, the rear walls (which among other things for a while prompted me to think the whole store hadn't been hit that hard since I could only see it from the back) and as I recall more than a little intact wall on the north side and in front. Next look at the Home Depot, where most of its outer tilt-up walls are fairly intact ... unfortunately all but a few flat on the ground.

But see above my comments in the "Home Depot vs. the other 2 big box stores" section. The Home Depot was in the south of the zone of totally red, "Catastrophic Destruction" while the Wal-Mart was just beyond that (I'm going by the older picture from the Army Corps of Engineers which is overlaid on a street map, look at the history of the article photo titled "US Army Corps of Engineers map showing the extent of damage"). Wal-Mart lucked out due to location more than anything else, and that's the rule rather than the exception in strong tornadoes.

For a bit more uncitable local and related reporting: just yesterday morning I was in the rebuilt Wal-Mart and my cashier said she was there that evening. She ran for it when the roof started peeling off, was obviously very frightened by the experience but said the worst part was afterwords, how all the babies were silent. Many feared they were dead, but I guess they have some sort of hardwired instinct to be quiet in nasty situations, all these who made it to something that became sort of an interior shelter area were alive and well. She said only 5 people died in the store; I've read that more died in the parking lot and as I recall more than 200 people were in the store when the tornado hit. Hga (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Death Toll[edit]

A couple weeks ago I exchanged emails with Greg Carbin at the SPC regarding the death toll of this tornado. I had asked why the death toll in the annual fatal tornado summaries was changed from 159 to 158 as the text towards the end of 2011 said "1 direct fatality was removed..." In his reply Carbin said that there never was a 159th direct fatality, as that death was not a direct result of the tornado. The figure given by the SPC indicates that the other fatalities over 158 were were not directly due to the tornado either. So should we change the death toll listed here to reflect this? Also, different death tolls for this tornado are listed on different articles. Whatever figure we settle on for the death toll of this tornado should be applied to all articles that list it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I thought that there were 160 deaths in Joplin. There are at least 7 articles that will need the death toll fixed. I will look around and if I see it anywhere, I will correct it. United States Man (talk) 05:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article says 160 deaths (+ 1 indirect). Since there were 158 deaths it should probably be 158 (+ 3 indirect). United States Man (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenses?[edit]

"The insurance payout is expected to be $2.2 billion;" -- should this be "The insurance payout was"? VoltageX (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. That sentence was written before any final numbers were in. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:47, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

damage cost error[edit]

the Adjusted Damage cost of the tornado right now shows 2906 in the list but it should be 2907 as shown here http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/damage$.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is likely due to differences in the calculator Wikipedia uses versus the one used for that list, which comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. There can be slight differences in calculating inflation, and a difference of about 0.03% could easily be the result of rounding differences and is overall, not that important. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Ignored Sirens Issue[edit]

This page is very good, but I note that it does not include any discussion of controversial decision of many residents to ignore the sirens that were blown 20 minutes before calamity struck, as discussed artciels such as this one from Reuters:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-joplin-tornado-report-idUSTRE78J6TJ20110920

How can we incorporate this aspect of the tragedy into the article? It is significant enough, and has many sources that meet Wikipedia's standards.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not know if anyone else thought this topic was relevant or not.TH1980 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response section missing any mention of the tremendous effort and effect by the people of Joplin themselves[edit]

Both during the tornado and within minutes thereafter, the people of Joplin sprung into action, helping one another take shelter until the storm passed, while providing emergency first aid immediately thereafter. Three friends arrived on scene the next day with their camping and construction equipment, and said that while first responders, National Guard troops, and rescue teams were present, the overwhelming percentage of people out there helping others came from the 50,000 citizens of Joplin, Missouri itself, along with thousands of others from both in-state and other states who descended on Joplin to help them. Most of what I see online hail the efforts of the state government, the Highway Patrol, National Guard, and federal efforts as the ONLY response, as if the people of Joplin were somehow pathetically helpless and utterly reliant on the government. Nothing could be further from the truth! News broadcasters on the scene captured hundreds of hours of footage showing by a factor of greater than 10 to 1, it was We the People who were doing most of the work. My friends reported they rarely saw the government efforts, that the vast majority of the response was people helping people, whether caring for the injured, erecting temporary shelters, or beginning the long process of clearing the rubble and debris. Thus, the Response section needs a lot of work! It needs to accurately reflect what a well-prepared, "can do!" community can do in the face of disaster.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural rescue[edit]

~The tornado-attack appeared in Monsters and Mysteries in America, which documented some survivor's experiences of being saved by the mythical Butterfly people.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 Joplin 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:

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) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Joplin 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:

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) 08:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2011 Joplin 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:

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) 22:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection?[edit]

It seems that most of the edits made to this article in the past few months have either been vandalism or undoing vandalism. Seems to me that semi-protection may be warranted. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Damage and wind speeds.[edit]

In the main article, it talks of winds exceeding 200 mph inside the vortex of the Joplin tornado when it talks of the structural deformation of St. John's Hospital and parking stops torn from parking lots. I personally think that only winds of absolutely no less than 315 mph could have done that kind of damage, especially to St. John's Hospital. Darthvader1 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the source to back that up? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
315 MPH? Really? If you go to NOAA.gov, and search Enhanced Fujita page, and go to the DI for hospitals, it says 178-268 MPH, and plus tornadoes with winds over 300 MPH happen only once every 15-20 years on average, with only 2 recorded in history. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 01:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Should note that 1999 Moore was official at 301±20 MPH, while 2013 El Reno was unofficial at 302 MPH (possibly up to 336, but unlikely). 2603:80A0:1100:1380:10D7:5DB1:9B43:BA71 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Butterfly People"[edit]

I kind of agree with on the "Butterfly People" thing @United States Man: that it doesn't belong in its own article and likely doesn't belong here. Notability is questionable and it sounds like a bunch of woo-y nonsense to me, though I understand that my personal skepticism about such things , on its own, wouldn't be grounds to remove it. If there is a page on purported supernatural occurrences surrounding disasters, that might be a better place for it. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure myself, but I’d rather it be here than have it’s own dead end page. United States Man (talk) 19:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I made the original content and do not have any problems with it being removed. Moodgenerator (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

location a place[edit]

Where was the fastrip? G23M08 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damage (USD) incorrect[edit]

It says in 2023 USD, it would be 3.64 billion dollars, but should actually show 3.69 billion dollars. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_Joplin_tornado&oldid=1196593092"