Talk:1974 Super Outbreak

Splitting proposal (Xenia)
I propose the section about the Xenia F5 tornado be split into its own article called 1974 Xenia tornado. Extremely notable and well-known tornado & its section is about the same size as the 2011 Smithville, Mississippi tornado, which is a stand-alone article. Elijahandskip (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Strong Oppose – This would create an unnecessary content fork for an article that would not end up expanding on the subject outside of what we already have here. United States Man (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/1974 Xenia tornado‎
An AfD is taking place with concerns this may be a WP:CONTENTFORK. United States Man (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Jasper Tornado: Destroyed Church in Alabama
I vividly remember this tornado. The church destroyed was Alta Hill Baptist Church in Fayette County. Should I insert the name of the church? Johnalex1 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Statewide Tornado Warning Debunked
Debunked by getting actual data from that National Weather Service in Omaha. If MarioProtIV believes this to be incorrect, what evidence do they have to support it? This is certainly a better source than an article in a forty year old farmer's almanac. Malnu (talk)


 * Reddit is not considered a reliable source nor is any original research. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 14:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I am with StefenTower here. Reddit, per Wikipedia consensus, is considered to be a “generally unreliable” source. So to have the info removed, you need to find another reliable source. We (WikiProject Weather) had a similar situation with the 2011 Smithville tornado article, where NWS actually commented (officially) that the article was wrong, but didn’t go into detail. Similar to that situation, I went ahead and added an accuracy template to the article. Maybe the info is truly wrong, but we also have to follow Wikipedia’s policy/ideology of verifiability, not truth. (Further at WP:VNTIA). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The reddit link refers to the information that came directly from NWS. I understand not wanting to use unreliable sources, but is this really less reliable than the Farmer's Almanac entry that also has no corroborating evidence? I think the removal should stand, as it doesn't seem we can verify the information adequately. Malnu (talk) Malnu (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem is not what NWS said, but where it is posted. The original post is considered “generally unreliable” since Reddit is a “generally unreliable” source on Wikipedia. If you were to make a citation for this information of removal, the URL cannot be from Reddit.com. That is the issue. In theory, based on what NWS said, this would get a section similar to 2011 Smithville tornado, since sources online would disagree. However, the source saying it is internet fiction, even if coming from NWS, cannot be on a Reddit.com-based URL per Wikipedia policy. Hopefully that explains the issue with the Reddit source. Info from NWS is always allowed, but not if it would be sourced by a Reddit.com URL in a citation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For reference, the citation below is what it it would look like if cited properly. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! Learning more about editing today. This has been an engaging discussion, and I hope that the information I provided from the weather.gov link can be used here in a meaningful way. I think I'll step away from this one. Cheers Malnu (talk) Malnu (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Understood! What are your thoughts about this page published by the national weather service?
 * Malnu (talk) Malnu (talk) 15:11, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I see the NWS map posted there not showing the entire state under tornado warnings. But per Wikipedia policy, we cannot change that without it being directly stated per the no original research policy. This is oddly similar to the verifiability, not truth in action case which led to factually inaccurate info existing (and remaining per consensus) on the Tornadoes of 2022 article. Since one source (Farmers Almanac) states it directly, another reliable source has to directly state that the fact in question (i.e. entire state not under a warning) is either not true or just say the entire state was not under a warning. The reddit post referenced has all the info to counter it, but it comes from an unreliable source-based URL. That is the whole issue. I want to remove it, but per policy, I can’t. 15:17, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * P.S., the info for the Smithville tornado was solved and figured out several months ago, so the template doesn’t exist on that article anymore. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:51, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note the reference provided by the other editor. Do you have better sources than the Farmer's Almanac? Malnu (talk) Malnu (talk) 15:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What in this source are you referring to exactly? Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 15:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I put the source in the wrong spot and thought there was another source there. :) I think this image from the weather service at the time is a fairly good source. Thoughts? Malnu (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You mean the warnings by county image? Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 15:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes! But I believe Weather Event Writer covered that with their most recent comment. I agree that it probably should be removed, but there's good reason and precedent to keep it.
 * Thanks again for your feedback! Malnu (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for your feedback! Malnu (talk) 15:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Farmersalmanac.com
Since there is an issue discussed here about the info, the source is only cited a single time and for the following: At one point forecasters in Indiana, frustrated because they could not keep up with all of the simultaneous tornado activity, put the entire state of Indiana under a blanket tornado warning. This was the first and only time in U.S. history that an entire state was under a tornado warning. Per original research, the National Weather Service even published they did not issue tornado warnings for the entire state of Indiana. For all of this, let’s have a discussion to gain a consensus about removing those sentences + the farmersalamac.com reference as not being useful for the article as only a single source mentions it (i.e. no WP:LASTING citation mentions). Courtesy ping for users involved in discussion above:,. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. Only a single citation/reference to this event occurring, despite thousands of other anniversary articles about it. The info alone wouldn’t meet LASTING guidelines and has no lasting coverage. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Correction: Info has been removed along with the source. It actually has not had a discussion at WP:RSN yet (period). This is the first and only discussion on Wikipedia pertaining to FarmersAlamac.com. Since there is a question to its reliability, even through OR, it actually shows it may not be a reliable source. Per WP:BRD, the source and info sourced by it should be taken to WP:RSN to re-add it for the formal “discussion” aspect of it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment: I honestly don't know how to weigh this as a source in general, but a wider discussion does seem necessary due to the rarity of the claim. I say 'rarity' as this anniversary news article states "In Indiana, so many storms were around that at one time the entire state was placed under a tornado warning to deal with the threat." Of course, it's possible they lifted this from the Wikipedia or the Farmers Almanac. Also a pertinent government report from December 1974 doesn't appear to mention a statewide alert for Indiana (note that text search isn't available; I had to meat-scan it, so perhaps I missed something. :) ). Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 16:25, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello and good day gentlemen, wanted to get involved here as I'm the OP of the Reddit post that led to this discussion. I did want to note that the document @StefenTower has just linked is the original source from which the map used to disprove the claim via the NWS came from. The map appears on page 16 of that document. This should substantiate that no mention of a statewide warning appears in this document, as that would require the document to be in disagreement with itself. Fat Feline (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, the map does not work resolutely as a counterclaim. It shows the official alerts for counties, yes, but doesn't really counter the claim there was a temporary statewide alert. Also, if you are reading a map, you are synthesizing a position. What we have is a clue but not a complete picture of the facts. We really need to know where the claim of the statewide alert originally comes from. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 17:44, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The earliest mention I can find of a statewide alert for Indiana comes from this 1996 History Channel documentary at 36:08, but it is a short clip. It seems that there may have been some misinterpretation at play, as it is likely the "alert" mentioned was just that, an alert urging people to take cover. This does not state a tornado warning was issued for the entire state. This also doesn't give any indication as to what their source was initially. Fat Feline (talk) 19:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Correction: The documentary is from 1997. Not 1996. Fat Feline (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. The narrator states the factoid in such a declarative manner that it likely has to point to something that happened. I did some additional searches in newspapers.com to see if there was a warning for the entire state of Indiana and it turned up dry. Of course, searches in newspapers.com are less than perfect, and it's possible I was using ineffective terms. Anyway, given this part of the article isn't key for readers to understand the subject, and we don't have a source for where this claim originally comes from, I'm OK with it being gone for at least the time-being. But I sure do want to know where this factoid sprang from. Curiouser and curiouser. Stefen Towers among the rest!   Gab • Gruntwerk 23:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For the record, I reverted the edit initially because of good faith assumption, as it is hard to believe someone saying such information if they are using an IP to make an edit (this is a common thing on Wikipedia for IPs to make such claims without backing it up, in all areas not just WikiProject Weather). Seeing the above discussion, it seems like it’s been realized the IP was (probably?) right. Sorry for any misgivings from this. --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 21:26, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * "Cool story bro". For the record, the IP claim was actually me. I attempted to make an account prior to my edit last night, but was auto-denied because too many people with my IP had created an account recently. Fat Feline (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings though. I get that 99% of changed made by IPs on Wikipedia end up being bs. Fat Feline (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No hard feelings, of course! But I think it would be wise to give a little explanation as to why you make a revert when you do. Thanks! Malnu (talk) 15:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)