Talk:Greensburg, Kansas

Important Notes Before Editing This Article
Please review the following to get a better idea of what you should add to this article:
 * 1) Please follow the Wikipedia USCITY guideline for layout and content.
 * 2) Please examine these great articles for ideas: Lock Haven, Pennsylvania / Stephens City, Virginia / Kent, Ohio / Tulsa, Oklahoma / Grand Forks, North Dakota.
 * 3) Please ensure a person meets Wikipedia Notability requirements before adding to the "Notable People" section.

Please review the following before editing:
 * 1) Please document your source by citing a reference to prove your text is verifiable.
 * 2) Please add text that has a neutral point of view instead of sounding like an advertisement.
 * 3) Please read the "Editing, Creating, and Maintaining Articles" chapter from the book Wikipedia : The Missing Manual, ISBN 9780596515164.

Sbmeirow (talk) 08:30, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of Fatalities
There have been several updates to the number of fatalities from the tornado in Greensburg with the number ranging between eight and twelve. If you read something other than what is currently in the article, please check the date/time of the source and update accordingly. jwadeo 03:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just updated the death toll to twelve based on this story - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20943089/ (official count now at twelve as of 9/23/07). It's well covered by reliable sources, not an isolated story.  However, I'm not sure whether to add the cites because it's still breaking news.  Maybe it's better to link the mention of the death toll to a more comprehensive article about the event, not the latest fatality report. Wikidemo 14:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Tornado Width
I don't know why it says the tornado was 1.5 miles wide on the Greenburg page; most of the sources I've found (CNN included) say it was a half mile to at most a mile wide.--Theinfernumflame 23:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The NWS released this afternoon (5-6-2007) that the width was 1.7 miles. jwadeo 02:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to that information? I'm curious about that.--Theinfernumflame 07:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, ok, I found something. The damage path was 1.7 miles wide, but I'd think the tornado was a little smaller than that.  I don't know for sure though.--Theinfernumflame 07:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1.7 miles, as the width, is mentioned several places. Example: USA Today jmswtlk 01:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you babbling about infernumflame? Silly!

I agree, the total number of fatalities is 12 with ages ranging from 46 to 84. No children, babies, or young adults were killed in this tornado. The website which show the names and ages of the fatalities are at the following link, "http://www.kansas.com/2007/05/08/64630/list-of-victims-offer-your-thoughts.html". With this information, I believe the fatalities should be changed to 12. Luke Duke 1980 (talk) 05:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Tornado Rating
The EF5 rating is now official, but why does this article keep referring to Greensburg in the past-tense.

Should the part about the tornado be moved into it's own section (as done with Enterprise, Alabama)? --68.160.121.28 10:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The information that it is an F4 is false. No damage survey has been completed by the National Weather Service yet. The only way a tornado gets a rating is after a full damage survey. Also the tornado F scale is no longer in use, so the information that it is an F4 is wrong on two counts. Loganwv78 14:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Judging by the damage, I wouldnt be one bit surprised if its classed as an F5, how long does the survey take? Anung Mwka 15:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

No doubt there are damage survey teams from the National Weather Service office in Dodge City in Greensburg right now. A full damage survey on something of this magnitude could take a while (a day or two). Further complicating the matter is that additional storms are in the area right now. 204.227.127.171 18:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the tornado being an "F4" since - as this discussion has already shown - that rating is invalid on two different counts. Firstly there ISN'T an official rating for the tornado yet, and secondly, since the F scale is no longer used. A fact-based article should not contain speculation. Toroca 08:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding the photo... are we sure that's actually a photo of the Greensburg Tornado? It seems to be backlit by daylight, and it should have been dark at the time the tornado hit. I live almost straight north of Greensburg, and it's certainly dark here by that time of night. Toroca 08:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article
Just to let you know, I'm in the process of writing an article on this tornado and the current outbreak.--JForget 15:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good, I was wondering what happened to my sentence! L337p4wn 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

PIX of tornado
It looks like the wedge tornado is backlit by either multiple lightning strikes and/or by powerlines as they're ripped out, both. 205.240.146.147 20:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree ? 205.240.146.147 20:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the photo came form KAKE, and their website indicated it was backlit by lightning. Cite them as a source if you use that information. Ubernostrum 23:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine was there storm chasing at the time, and he said there was so much lightning that it was backlit pretty well just from the lightning. He did take a few pictures himself, so I'll see how they turned out.--Theinfernumflame 23:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It's Greensburg, Kansas
Greensburg has been entirely destroyed by an mile-wide wedge tornado, except for the courthouse, and Greensburg is now wiped off the map, but this was a county seat town, after all. I did see pitcures of so much destruction of the town, displacing all of 1,400 residents.

Reversions
People, please note that the town still officially exists, and should not be referred to in the past tense. We've had plenty of unencylopædic stuff in here, such as the in-text note about "We don't know how accurate this article is yet", and let's keep it that way. We're having plenty of changes made by IP addresses, most of whom don't give any edit summary, and it's hard to ensure that the page remains in an encylopædic fashion. Even unrelated changes have been made; I made a navigational template for Kiowa County, and it was removed by a wholescale reversion to a previous, poorer-quality version by an IP. I am at my 3RR limit, so I won't fix any more problems like that, but somebody please make sure that this page stays at decent quality. Nyttend 18:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be in order to request temporary protection for this page from unregistered users. --zandperl 19:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you--we had this argument over New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina two years ago, when a series of anonymous (and some established) editors insisted on referring to the city in the past tense, causing a lot of edit-warring. Unless the city charter is revoked, the city officially disbanded and the institutions formally closed down, it still exists as an incorporated entity.  Antandrus  (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this page should be semi-protected due to such. CrazyC83 22:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree the page should be temporarily protected. Over the last 24-48 hours or so, several changes have been made to put the city in the past tense, which is simple not true. The city is still incorporated. jwadeo 18:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not sure why Burntapple keeps modifying the city to past tense. Nothing about the geography of the city has changed, nor has the status of incorporation. jwadeo 19:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree as well - considering this is a current event that is subject to speculation, I think it's in the best interest of quality that the page be protected to hinder unwanted and unwarranted edits, especially those edits to refer to the town in the past tense. Billydee84 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[]

Addition of Volunteer Information Section
I added a "Volunteer Information" section with information extracted from Greensburg's public information page. The section could probably use some editing for grammar since I'm new to editing at Wikipedia. I've been volunteering in Greensburg from May 20th-31st and June 20th-26th if more information is needed. Jperson 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As of July 15, 2007, the AmeriCorps team has wrapped up their operations in Greensburg and moved on to a firefighting project in Montana. Whomever removed the Volunteer Information Section made a good call since there's little need anymore for volunteers in town right now, at least for clean-up.  Volunteer efforts will probably not be needed until building projects such as Habitat for Humanity move in, and they're still waiting for funding (7/19/2007) Jperson 67.166.26.225 16:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of News and Disaster Information Section
I added this section today to give visitors a (cited) link to information which is updated daily by the Kansas Adjutant General's office. There is also an issue regarding whether or not the local grocery store, Dillon's, will be rebuilt. If Kroger decides not to rebuild, it could slow the rebuilding of the town. I added a link to a petition asking Kroger to rebuild, then tried to link to it from here without trying to persuade anybody to sign, per se. Let me know if this is against the rules. Jperson 67.166.26.225 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Town Recovery Updates
After making a second trip to Greensburg, it looks to me like the clean-up efforts will complete by the end of July. Dump trucks are hauling debris from streets, working West-to-East across town. As of July 14, 2007, the dump trucks had only a few streets left to clean up. Rebuilding efforts will probably begin to pick up in August. As of July 16, 2007, Habitat for Humanity of Wichita has no definitive plans for a project in Greensburg due to lack of funding. Jperson 67.166.26.225 16:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Well Destruction
Big Well was initially thought to have collapsed, but inspection showed that it was, indeed, fine. Changed "The well caved in on itself, but the meteorite was found in the rubble of the museum and moved to a temporary home of Wichita before Greensburg could reclaim it." to "The Well was not destroyed, and the meteorite was found in the rubble of the museum and moved to a temporary home of Wichita before Greensburg could reclaim it." Which, admittedly, is a little awkward, but there you have it. 198.182.30.82 20:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Fatality Questions
This article lists the number of fatalities as 10 in the first paragraph, and later puts the number of deaths at 12. I am unsure which is the correct number, but wanted to point out the inconsistency. 216.166.211.102 19:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 10 died in and around Greensburg, but the storm itself caused 12 total. 146.229.139.228 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pictures needed
I think this article would be greatly benefited by pictures of the town before the tornado hit. Wrad (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Error in the article?
"The Tornado had caused EF5 Damage at least one well built home in Greensburg"

That doesn't make sense to me, though I'm no expert on tornadoes. It reads as though someone did an accidental paste. 81.159.61.104 (talk) 19:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused about what's confusing you; for what reason does this not make sense? Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for one, it isn't even a complete sentence. At the minimum, there is a missing "to" somewhere in there. I also thought the tornado's strength was determined to be EF5 based on the damage it caused along the entire damage path. (Note, I'm not the original poster) 76.236.174.54 (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the determination of the damage (I don't have any sources before me), I feel rather silly not having noticed the lack of "to" that you note. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Population?
The United States Census Bureau estimates Greensburg's population as 1,280 as of July 1, 2008. The population was estimated to be 1,378 as of July 1, 2006. Has the town really recovered that much, given that 95% of the town was destroyed? Since all new buildings are to be built to LEED standards, I would assume this would slow the recovery. (More bizarrely, the population was estimated to be 1,372 as of July 1, 2007, less than two months following the destuction. The population had been declining an average of 33 people per year from 2000, and 11 people were killed in the tornado, and the tornado destroys the town, but the population only declines by 6!? Weird.) Phizzy   18:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)