Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 2

Talk page archiving
Would anyone object if I were to set up MiszaBot I automated archiving of this talk page? I was thinking any section older than 45 days for archiving...any comments on that? Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 20:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would you think that anyone would object? The people on here aren't that bad for disagreement. United States Man (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's pretty common to ask before setting up an archive of an article talk page, though I've yet to see anyone disagree to it anywhere on Wikipedia. I'm in favor of an archive...let me know if you need help setting it up. Guy1890 (talk) 21:06, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

✅. I've set up talk page archiving; feel free to revert if anyone disagrees. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 05:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Does the phrase "near-F5" warrant inclusion on this list.?
I'm growing rather doubtful about this. The way I look at it "possible F5" and "Near-F5" are two different things. "Near F5" would indicate damage falling just short of F5 intensity, in my opinion at least. I think the Palm Sunday entries should stay though, due to the persistent controversy surrounding those ratings. Any input? Sharkguy05 (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * That makes perfect sense. My pick would be to remove the near-F5 entries. United States Man (talk) 21:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Interpreting a statement of "near-F5" for inclusion of a tornado as an F5 would probably be considered WP:OR. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Input requested on whether a certain sentence could be classified as an opinion
A dispute between myself and User:Sharkguy05 about whether this or this should be the official "way it should be." The specific problem is that Sharkguy05 continues to add a sentence about the EF5 damage area being rather large according to the "official survey map." Although a reference to the map is included, there is no text-based evidence to support this claim. This should classify it as an opinion on his part. To add to this, a text-based claim in the sentence before that clearly states that the National Weather Service in Springfield, Missouri said that the EF5 damage area was "very small." Thoughts? United States Man (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the EF5 contour shown on the map does not mark an area of continuous EF5 damage, but rather the area in which EF5 damage generally occurred, perhaps noting small, sporadic spots of EF5 damage. I seem to recall something along those lines with the 1999 OKC area tornado, noting "continuous F4 damage with sporadic F5 damage." I'm too tired to think heavily on this. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The most important phrase to consider here on this page is: "Note - Tornado tracks and damage contours are based on individual damage points and estimates based on satellite imagery and may not be fully accurate down to the sub-neighborhood level." I wouldn't assume that every bit of the darkest red swath shown on that map had full-blown (no pun intended) EF-5 damage, since that's really not what this kind of map is capable of showing. The text on the rest of that same page is certainly rich with all kinds of very descriptive accounts of damage that (at least a portion of which) could be included (if not there already) in this article. In short, the phrase "though the official survey map shows a very large EF5 damage contour" really shouldn't be contained in this article here IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think the key phrase is "very large": what does that mean? Large compared to what? Large compared to a "typical" EF5's damage area? Where is this defined? If the size of a "very large" (or similar) damage area isn't supported in a text reference, then is it supported by some sort of reference diagram which shows small, medium and large damage areas for an EF5 tornado? If not, and the source for this comparison is indeed User:Sharkguy05 him/her/itself, then IMO that qualifies as original research. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sharkguy's edit currently looks like an opinion without a text source to back it up, if you ask me. As per Dtgriscom, you would need a reference that can definitively say that it was "very large." A link or image to the survey map without the opinion might be fine, though. CharmlessCoin (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to ask that this above discussion be closed somehow? Guy1890 (talk) 18:41, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Was Sneed 1929 really the only Arkansas F5?
Wasn't the 1921 Hempstead County tornado considered by NCDC to have been an F5? I'm thinking that we should change any mention of Sneed being the only F5 in the state. Sharkguy05 (talk) 03:25, 28 October 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * Where is the NCDC article that says that? I'd double check before changing anything to make sure it isn't just mentioned as a possible F5. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Not really sure, it simply lists it under "Historical F5s". We already have it included on the main page, so it seems kind of strange to list it, but mention Sneed as the only F5 in Arkansas.http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/techrpts/tr9902/tr9902.pdf
 * Sharkguy05 (talk) 02:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * It looks like a portion of the track was in Texas, so from that, it is unclear where the possible F5 damage was. Grazulis seems to indicate that damage was more severe in Arkansas, but he lists this event an F4 and makes no mention of homes being swept away, so going based on that would probably be OR. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Photo
I was just reminded that we have pictures of the 1974 Xenia tornado, at least one of which might have captured it at F5 intensity. Is there any way to verify the intensity at the time of the photographs? TornadoLGS (talk) 05:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

April 26 1991 Oologah, Oklahoma tornado
in this page it shows this tornado is a official F5 but here 1991_Andover,_Kansas_tornado_outbreak it is shown as a f4... what page is wrong and what page is right here... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 12:40, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was officially an F4. The apparent F5 rating is based on analysis by Grazulis. This has been corrected. TornadoLGS (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Regina Cyclone
first of all this tornado was a possible f5 I think it should be added as a (Officially ranked below F5/EF5, but rating is disputed)rank also why dose it say f5 here Regina_Cyclone also its the deadliest Canadian tornado ever, look around to see if im right or wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godjira999 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it might have been an F5 but we would need a reliable source describing it as an F5 or possible F5. The article was mistaken in listing it as an F5. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:11, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Too many colors
Any way the number of colors could be cut down? It's pretty confusing to understand which tornado goes under which color when they all look pretty similar. There could be 2..."Official F5/EF5; undisputed" and "Officially ranked below F5/EF5, but rating is disputed; event may have been F5/EF5"...and then just add a few notes in the individual tornado boxes noting who gave/didn't give the tornado an F5/EF5 rating. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At the very least, I do think we should make the colors more different. How would the NCDC memo go then, though? TornadoLGS (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It would go under the first category. The NCDC memo is official, if it says a tornado was an F5/EF5, we have to go with it being an F5/EF5. I think it might also be of more benefit to ditch the sections and make the tables into one large one. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 17:09, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Vilonia?
Just wanted to propose the idea of maybe adding Vilonia to this list as a disputed/possible EF5? The EF4 rating did not go over well at all, and recent info shows that there was as least one home that was properly bolted down. It's gotten to the point where LZK's John Robinson issued a statement defending the rating: http://www.arktimes.com/ArkansasBlog/archives/2014/05/05/meteorologist-defends-ef4-rating-on-vilonia-tornado Sharkguy05 (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05
 * I understand your reasoning, but I also see problems with it. First, note that that article is a blog, which is an issue. Second, note this sentence: "As expected, we are getting all sorts of comments about why the tornado was not rated EF5 in Vilonia." He didn't explicitly say who "they" is referring, so this could be referring to random people impacted by the tornado for all we know. There are other problems with your reasoning as well, but I will leave this here, at least for now, by saying that I do not think that is enough of a reason for inclusion. Dustin  ( talk ) 21:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. While there seem to be some who believe it was an EF5, I have not heard such a claim from anyone whom I would consider expert enough to warrant inclusion. If I do find something, though, I will be sure to bring it up. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This explains the NWS' reasoning behind the EF4 rating. United States Man (talk) 01:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also a point on the damage map that says it is the "site of maximum damage". The description of that point is:
 * This point received the maximum damage rating as the walls were connected to the sill plate with nuts, bolts, and washers. An EF5 rating was not assigned because: Ratings are not normally assinged based on one only structure, the house was hit by the debris from the downtown buildings so there was uncertainty as to how much damage was done by the tornado itself vs. flying debris, and some trees (tall and skinny) were still standing along a ditch about 100 yards away.
 * So it looks like it was just a normal EF4 that we get several of every year. United States Man (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Harper County Kansas tornado May 12, 2004
Was conservatively rated high-end F4 because of its very slow movement. The guy that rated this tornado at times wished he had rated it F5. Produced very extreme ground scouring, mangled a truck beyond recognition, extreme tree debarking, and swept a well-built home completely away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubbydoo10 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

While I completely agree, we can't add it without a source. I have to say though, even among NWS meteorologists, the 2004 Harper tornado is still one of the most highly controversial ratings out there. The surveyor who rated it F4 (Chance Haynes) has indeed expressed in recent years that he wants to go back and upgrade it to F5, but he can't due to some policy. We need to be on the lookout for a source, as it definitely is a glaring absence on this list.

Edit:Grammer Sharkguy05 (talk) 04:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)Sharkguy05

Add section
It seems it's past time to include an additional section on the page specifically dedicated to "Disputed F5/EF5" to clean up the sections and to not distort the public perception of what is accurately reported as official F5/EF5 classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-MF-L (talk • contribs) 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what the color coding is for. It used to be like that, and it was a big mess. United States Man (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141112234313/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/SearchOrBrowse?sessionid=01-50194-1244976548 to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/SearchOrBrowse?sessionid=01-50194-1244976548
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.april31974.com/don_macy_photos_of_april_3_1974.htm
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.april31974.com/tornado_photos_from_sayler_park.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080605035843/http://www.crh.noaa.gov:80/eax/?n=ruskinheightstornado to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/eax/?n=ruskinheightstornado

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Joplin marked as an undisputed EF5?
To my knowledge a number of sources have disputed the rating of the Joplin tornado, with a 2013 survey assigning an EF4 rating. Yet on this page the Joplin tornado is categorized as an official, undisputed EF5. Should this be changed? --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 16:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Per request, the article that I found stating that there was no EF5 damage in Joplin can be found here: https://weather.com/storms/tornado/news/new-engineering-study-finds-no-ef5-damage-joplin-20130610 --Anonymous Macaw (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070202091718/http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/tornadoes_stats_new.html to http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/environment/naturalhazards/majortornadoes/tornadoes_stats_new.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Per: 2000 NCDC tornado climatology memorandum
On the "light" colored symbol representing tornadoes "Listed as an F5/EF5 on the 2000 NCDC tornado climatology memo": Are these for the ones rated only by the 2000 NCDC memo, or do/can they included ones rated by both the memo and other weather/storm/tornado experts? If it's the latter, then there should be more tornadoes on the list using this color (official and "unofficial") than currently displayed. On a side note a reference on the 1952 tornado outbreak said there were two tornadoes in the 1974 Super Outbreak that were briefly rated F5 but the rating was lowered. If the 2nd Tanner tornado was one of those two (later regaining it's F5 rating) what was the other one (and if neither Tanner tornadoes were any of the ones picked, which ones were)? Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

2015 Fairdale, Illinois tornado
I'm slightly surprised that the very high-end EF-4 tornado that hit Fairdale, Ill. in 2015 isn't on the list (or at least mentioned), considering that one more MPH tick up "might" have made it an EF-5 (depending on the damage survey).--Halls4521 (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is we don't have a reliable source that questions the high-end EF4 rating. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121218004427/http://www.nwas.org/digest/papers/2000/Vol24No4/Pg3-Gordon.pdf to http://www.nwas.org/digest/papers/2000/Vol24No4/Pg3-Gordon.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030111062912/http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/canwarn/windsor-e.html to http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/canwarn/windsor-e.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140504224344/http://www.lubbocktornado1970.com/pdf/ResponseStructuralSystems_TTUResearch_Pt5.pdf to http://www.lubbocktornado1970.com/pdf/ResponseStructuralSystems_TTUResearch_Pt5.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140113064343/http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/argentina.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/alltorns/argentina.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303185947/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/hun/media/1974/April%203%2C%201974%20%20A%20Night%20to%20Remember.pdf to http://www.srh.noaa.gov/images/hun/media/1974/April%203%2C%201974%20%20A%20Night%20to%20Remember.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208223129/http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=tor1992jun16_fig6 to http://www.crh.noaa.gov/fsd/?n=tor1992jun16_fig6
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140311195101/http://cig.mesonet.org/NCDCpubs/Storm_Data/1999%20SD/SD199905.pdf to http://cig.mesonet.org/NCDCpubs/Storm_Data/1999%20SD/SD199905.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110611150927/http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=4B3DE57E-4967-4B09-98D6-EF974B32D6B5 to http://www.ec.gc.ca/default.asp?lang=En&n=714D9AAE-1&news=4B3DE57E-4967-4B09-98D6-EF974B32D6B5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224113344/http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-37393-1839547404&recno=29&resultset=2&format=F&next=html%2Fnffull.html&bad=error%2Fbadfetch.html&&entitytoprecno=29&entitycurrecno=29&entityreturnTo=brief to http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-37393-1839547404&recno=29&resultset=2&format=F&next=html%2Fnffull.html&bad=error%2Fbadfetch.html&&entitytoprecno=29&entitycurrecno=29&entityreturnTo=brief

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Some tornadoes that should be added to the list (highly recommend 2 of them)
most should be added to the (Officially ranked below F5/EF5, but rating is disputed; event may have been F5/EF5)

1:EF4 tornado that struck Zion Arkansas on february 5 2008

https://www.flickr.com/photos/23739096@N06/2261403420/in/photostream/ https://extremeplanet.me/2012/09/09/the-indefinitive-list-of-the-strongest-tornadoes-ever-recorded-part-ii/ (Hummer thrown about 400 yards away from the garage it was parked in during an EF4 tornado that struck Zion, Arkansas on February 5th, 2008.) (Another vehicle in the same area was mangled beyond recognition and wrapped around a denuded tree.)

2:Mulhall Oklahoma on May 3 1999

Winds over 240 mph but the strongest winds where over nothing while the edge hit the town and caused f4 damage one framehouse was was swept away

3:La Plata on April 28

used to be rated f5 but then downgraded http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49231-2002May7.html

4:Cullman/Arab Alabama April 27 2011

(A large but poorly-anchored brick home was swept completely away in this area, with the debris scattered 100 yards from the foundation. Several large trees on the property were ripped out of the ground and missing, along with a trailer that was unable to be located at the time of the survey.) rumor:also heard they where gonna rate it ef5 but some strange reason made them not do it?

5:Bakersfield Valley Texas June 1 1990 (first of the highly recommend tornado/SHOCK THAT NO ONE PUT THIS YET)

(As the tornado continued eastward, it intensified further and left a pronounced streak of severe ground scouring. According to a survey report, the storm left “only a few rocks and on occasional greasewood or mesquite stump” (Storm Data, June 1990).) https://extremeplanet.me/2012/07/01/the-non-definitive-list-of-the-strongest-tornadoes-ever-recorded-damage-intensity/ (The storm then entered an oilfield and unanchored three 500-barrell oil tanks, each weighing approximately 180,000lbs, and tossed and rolled them three miles to the east. Two of the oil tanks were tossed 600ft up the side of a hill with a steep incline (Storm Data, June 1990).) (Nearby, a drainage culvert was scoured of concrete and large oil pumps were damaged or destroyed (Storm Data, June 1990).)

poorly known for hitting in the middle of no wheres but had jarrell like damage.

6:Harper Kansas May 12 2004 (Second of the highly recommend tornado/other jarrell like tornado)

https://stormtrack.org/community/threads/2004-05-12-harper-attica-tornadoes.17525/ http://www.okstorms.com/chasing/other_weather/storm_damage.htm https://extremeplanet.me/2012/06/22/the-amazing-elie-canada-f5-tornado/ (look in the comments)

was given a f4 rating then f5 then downgraded back to f4 the ones that gave it the f4 rating now wished they had given it a f5 rating only reason it never got the f5 rating was because of its slow movement speed

there are more tornadoes that i say should be look at mostly on april 27 2011, even pampa texas 1995 was said to show 300 mph base on video evidence of the objects being thrown.


 * Well, here are some more Tornadoes that could maybe be added on the list:
 * 7.) Thurston County, Nebraska, Sept. 13, 1928 - Mentioned in detail in two of Dr. Grazulis' books (Sig. Tornadoes & Tornado: Nat.'s Ultimate Windstorm). Rated an at minimum F4, but mentioned as a possible F5(?) in Sig.. Bldgs. "completely leveled" or swept away.
 * 8. (and possible 9. & 10)) 1974 Super Outbreak: One of the tornadoes currently on the list (#98) apparently was rated F5 (in Tenn.), downgraded to F4, then upgraded back to F5 (in Alabama). Another tornado (#97) was apparently rated F5 by some (albeit temporarily), and there maybe a couple of tornadoes that some seem to think could have actually been an F5.


 * (P.S.: There were apparently were some article (old & new) and old Documemtries mistakely called the 1936 Gainesville tornado(es) an F5. Wonder if it was a typo or just given bad info.)


 * Refs':


 * []
 * []
 * Grazulis, Thomas P. (1993). Significant Tornadoes 1680-1991: A Chronology and Analysis of Events. Environmental Films.
 * Grazulis, Thomas P. (2001). Tornado: Nature's Ultimate Windstorm University of Oklahoma Press.
 * --Halls4521 (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

About to make a change to this article
The change is to make it more easy to see and sort (some colors blend ive fix this), and some tornadoes day sorting are messed up (fix this as well) a tornado had a strange location bug that for some reason wasted alot of space(fix).

the next thing that will take a while is the location... its been bothering me and some other users, a example is that a possible tornado happened in canada but its too blended in with the usa tornadoes, i will split location into 3 (State,Country,Location) this could be very helpful.

just note that i will try my best to make sure the bars are not too wide or short, ive shorten the year and Fatalities it was taking a bit too much space for no reason at all.

hope this will make this article more better for searching for the tornado your looking for :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Refreshing this list
I want to raise the possibility of removing all tornadoes from this list which have not officially been rated as F5 or EF5. This is to make the article more clear and to remove POV from content in disputed F5/EF5 tornado cases. If there is a citable measurement given that it is in fact an F5/EF5, this could be accepted however it would have to come from an official source.

This is simply good housekeeping in making sure the article is more concise, increasing accuracy and not allowing POV of tornado strength regardless of any tornado experience. Even if people argue otherwise, as an official classification an F4/EF4 tornado is clearly not an F5/EF5, hence the separate classifications. Perhaps another idea to help this would be to tidy up the F4/EF4 page into a list like this, which would allow removal of disputed cases into a better page. Whilst I would be willing to do this, it is apparent that there are people here with more experience in this field. Tmurlis (talk) 01:11, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit: there are also elements of WP:LAUNDRY in here, where it states 'To identify entries in lists that are... nonencyclopedic, and unhelpful', therefore I will be adding a cleanup tag to this. Tmurlis (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Further to this I have done some cleaning in removing unofficial ratings. These should go on an EF4/F4 list or be made clear on their pages that they could be EF5/F5 but are not officially rated as such. Tmurlis (talk) 00:34, 13 September 2018 (UTC)


 * we are all humans and humans make mistakes, and base and what you are telling, has sadly a bit more issues then what you might think, the only thing i agree on is the part you noted on who this dispute is from. however this leaves on the other issue of why leave the possible not ef5 list then... you also noted F4/EF4 list... this dosnt exist yet and would take way too long , a other issue is this big example , el reno tornado 2013 , by your logic your saying it was a very weak tornado and we cant put it in the ef5 or ef4 list and this feels you would say ef3 list , this would be very disrespectful for the 4 storm chasers who died and WAY more confusing for people , 2 highest recorded wind speed is apparently weaker then 200+ tornadoes , lots of us work very hard on this page , to show the mistakes and important info for tornadoes, there has been huge forum wars and friend wars just cause this tornado wasn't on the f5 list , if we do it your way it will keep making drama on and on. there is a whole page on possible dwarf planet , what you did here means we have to remove a whole wiki page... i mean you are the only one that did this i haven't yet seen anyone else want what you want , but plenty what the unofficial list. el reno tornado and 2014 tornado on april made alot of fights, we could instead do something about who or where this dispute came from instead of making a big mess.--Joshoctober16 (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh also a other issue is that the unofficial list of EF5 has a other awkward problem... the tornadoes that have not officially been rated anything... there's a few of them. i was gonna add a other color in the future from them --Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:28, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh right... uh theres also the fact that the Offical rated tornadoes only start from the year 1950, so removing any before that year , all not from USA, might be a problem. --Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * However the thing about of who is disputing the tornado part has giving me a idea, to list them but... will take a week for me to fix it up (i have sleeping issues.) still a easy job compared to the huge mess a ef4 list could do --Joshoctober16 (talk) 18:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

If you can provide sources that say that the tornadoes are officially rated as EF5/F5 then they should remain on this list. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a memorial for people that have chosen to put their own lives in danger by placing themselves near extreme weather events. This list is clearly undefined, and as previously stated the entire point of it is that it lists EF5 and F5 tornadoes, not EF4/F4 tornadoes, not EF3/F3 tornadoes. This is not confusing. This is using official data from the national weather service and NOAA. The opinion of one meteorologist on a website does not override the official rating. The 2013 El Reno tornado, regardless of death toll, is classified as an EF3/F3 tornado and is disputed to be EF5 and therefore should be listed as an EF3/F£ tornado with a disputed marker, not an EF5/F5 tornado, as it is not classified as that. This is in line with the guidelines of wikipedia. That being said, I do not wish to start an edit war, however we should not be including items in lists based on beliefs of events, regardless of the standing of the believer, rather than official classifications. This is as the classification that exists uses the measure of damage, rather than metrics for windspeed, which is obviously in itself disputed. Please see this page for clarification. See [|here for guidelines on reliable sources]. I recognise the pre-1950 ratings as being set by Thomas P. Grazulis. Might i suggest creating a separate list on this page for entries that are disputed, this will allow a clear distinction between official ratings and measured/perceived ratings... Tmurlis (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * if i am correct... i think a long time ago it was a separated list for the disputed ones but the arguments made it eventually merge it together? try looking in the history of this page, a other thing to ask is this do any 201mph or higher winds measurement close to the ground get in the disputed list?, and who can be creditable enough that there dispute to be added here? and what do you mean by disputed maker? never seen it anywhere, a other thing to note alot of us are waiting for thomas to release the new book for his list seems to be coming out in 2021 will cover the unlisted ef5 of 1990 to 2019 so this page is gona be in a awkward state for a full year. --Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I definitely oppose the removal of unofficial F5/EF5 tornadoes. Tornado ratings are inherently subjective. It is especially difficult to verify F5/EF5 intensity as such damage often appears similar to F4/EF4 damage, so indicators of such F5/EF5 intensity can be easily overlooked or wrongfully dismissed. Because of the dependence on adequate damage indicators many strong tornadoes are officially rated below their true intensity. For these reasons the official ratings, while still the most authoritative source, are not the only ones we should consider.
 * I do think that table should be cleaned up, as I think there are too many categories for the table. It should be reduced to the basic four groups:
 * Officially F5/EF5, undisputed
 * Officially F5/EF5, disputed
 * Officially below F5/EF5, disputed
 * No official rating, unofficially F5/EF5
 * Additionally, we should change the color palette as the current colors used are too similar. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * i agree on this however im now wondering... theres a little issue about the colors that has been bothering me, the tornadoes before 1950 , its not that there offically bellow f5 , its that nws never even rated them anything? it seems to not fit with the officially below f5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly, which is why I have the fourth category for tornadoes with no official rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh i see it fits well i guess i should change this one day all the pre 1950, but uh... that would mean all the us tornadoes before will all be unoffical rating.Joshoctober16 (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, all confirmed/possible F5/EF5 tornadoes Pre-1950 are unofficially rated. NWS/SPC, while confirming the ratings that were given to them, has stated that officially only tornadoes whose data was originally recorded with modern record-keeping methods (c.1950 onward) would have official ratings. The first storm on this list with an official rating on this list is the May 18, 1951 storm (with the 1953 Waco storm being the first official F5). All storms prior have "estimated ratings" that while for the most part are confirmed by experts and researchers, are not official (although treated and accepted as such).--Halls4521 (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the "estimated ratings" (Pre-1950) are either from Grazulis' books/papers/research, or from the NCDC (or both). However, Grazulis from I see noted some tornadoes noted that there were some "pre-modern" U.S. tornadoes caused possible F5/EF5 damage but was "rated an estimated F4 due to some uncertainty". The grouping for unofficially rated tornadoes may need to be re-worded.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe change it to "Officially not rated, but event listed as an possible/accepted F5/EF5".....--Halls4521 (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also considering changing it to "No official rating" since the current wording seems a bit odd. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The Tornadoes that need to be looked into more.
ok so the first list is for tornadoes that i cant find the proof for or the links broke for them.

as for the second list all the tornadoes execpt for the last 2 need more info, its way too short and really poorly done , as for the Manchester tornado i need to find the nws windspeed proof however the link broke....

Now for joplin.... this one is in a confusing spot... it says disputed, yes its true that the ef5 damage for the houes are disputed i understand that.... however, the tornadoes highest rating is base on the most severe damage found , even if it is only one , the report mostly talks about houses however the big ef5 damage points came from different stuff , this mostly means that the dispute is more about how much ef5 damage there was , all the so call ef5 damage was from ground scouring , pavement scouring , manhole damage , car damage and alot of other stuff , im asking that the joplin tornado should be removed from this dispute rating , also a other issue is of WHO this dispute came from and if this group counts?Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe it was The Weather Channel that came out with the 2013 report. I think there is a discussion of it in the archives of this talk page. The basis of the EF5 rating is from nonstandard damage indicators that are not listed in the guidelines for the Enhanced Fujita scale. In that sense, a "by the book" survey would not consider them to be indicators of EF5 intensity, or any particular intensity for that matter. I can check Significant Tornadoes at some point to see if there's anything I can add to some of the other tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Should we remove the cleanup tag?
The cleanup tag on this article was added by someone who wanted to remove all tornadoes that were not officially rated F5/EF5. This suggestion does not seem to reflect the consensus. Now, please I don't want to jump the gun on removing it. I want to be sure there is a consensus first. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm...unsure i say it should for sure be removed when the tornadoes with Pending are all fixed up, most of them are taking time because im not quite sure who/what rates the tornadoes f5 on other countrys? litterly all but 2 are not from usa the pending list. Joshoctober16 (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point there. I guess we should keep it at least until we can get the non-US tornadoes sorted out. Not sure about the current status, but I remember some of the sources that have been cited aren't even in English, which presents a challenge. TornadoLGS (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Wind speed for the list and here is a usefull site for the strongest TVS and Gate to gate wind speed.
http://www.spegweb.com/wx/tvs/index.php http://www.spegweb.com/wx/tvs/gatetogate.php this can be helpfull info for the tornadoes in this list. also there should be some sort of (limit? minimum) for example... tornado with winds of 500 mph in a open feild of sand... and it gets a low rating of EF2, im pretty sure evreyone is gona agree it should be a possible EF5. what im asking is what should be the LIMIT in min of wind speed for calling it possible EF5 tornado? , like 200, 201 , 205 , 260 , 261 , 300 , 301 MPH. (if i had to pick it would be 260 mph) yes i know its a damage rating however when the winds get High enough it will be at the point evreyone will disagree with the rating, were should it be? a other reason is.... wind mesurement will be added to the EF scale at around 2021? i think, yes you must be (thinking wait wut were did you hear this?) i will later do a reply of tim marshal talking about this, IF I CAN FIND IT... so ya in 3? years the its just a damage and the wind speed measurement dosnt work for a rating will change. asking this to get prepared a bit. Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here it is however im unsure where in the video this is talk about,might reply of where in the vid.Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok figured out the time its at 1:10:44 in the video where it starts for this EF scale Change and wind speed mesurements (im shock i was able to refind this video i tougth i lost it.)Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Other "Possible" F5 tornadoes listed by Fujita and Forbes
According to the Tri-State Tornado article, Prop. Fujita ("Tetsuya T.") rated it an F5. (He did on past tornadoes and rated the ones from during the timeline 1916–1992.) But the closest surviving link I found for reference is one lead to this article at this site (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00431672.1973.9931633), which says he called it "An example of (one of) the largest and the strongest tornado(es)," and that "Such an intense tornado is exceptional indeed, rather than common."

This link (https://www.seeker.com/deadliest-tornadoes-in-us-history-photos-1767549613.html) says Prof. Fujita also rated the 1936 Tupelo tornado an F5. (I think I've somewhere he did the same to the 1947 Woodward tornado, but currently I can't find it.)

Finally, Dr. Forbes ("Gregory S.") in one of the references to the 2013 El Reno tornado said he thought it should have stayed an EF5. Also, though we can't use as an reference, he apparently thought the 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham tornado also should have been rated an EF5. (https://extremeplanet.me/2012/07/31/was-the-tuscaloosa-tornado-an-ef5-examining-aerial-damage-photographs/)

Let me know if there's anyway to check these out.--Halls4521 (talk) 02:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

More reference sources......
Some of the pre-1950 tornadoes, I've noticed, are listed as (possible) F5's in both the local history websites, as well as the history sections of the local NWS/SPC websites. Should we use those as references as well (at least the local NWS/SPC sites for the pre-1950 storms)? Also, Prop. Fujita is a good reference, right? If so, should we list him as "T.T.", or as "Tetsuya T."? Finally, I wonder should also use Dr. Forbes ("Gregory S.") as a reference? He studied under Prop. Fujita, and is an expert on this, but maybe considered controversial by some due to his connection with the Weather Channel. Thanks. --Halls4521 (talk) 12:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, should we reference the NWS or SPC (when available) on storms initially rated F5/EF5 but downgraded to a lower rating? (Example: In the 2013 El Reno tornado article, references for it state that the local NWS offices, in a matter of days, rated the tornado EF3 to EF5 and finally to EF3 again.)--Halls4521 (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * in terms of refference's i think any is fine.
 * also what is this pre-1950 list you speek of? can you post a link to it?
 * And yes 100% fujita list should be added since he litterly MADE the scale, however it would be nice to know who would be good enough to be counted to be put for this reference?
 * A other thing to note is, should we add all the ef4 that were rated 200 mph , it is noted the ef scale originaly had the ef5 listed as 200 mph , some of the so call ef5 damage for the moore tornado only got rated 200 mph insteed of 201 mph , 200 mph is boderline ef4/ef5.
 * ive at least put refference's for all but 2 usa tornadoes but 2 still need more info,there both tornadoes that are said to be possibly worser then jarrell, the first its like theres almost no info, the 2 all the links are dead.
 * Keep hearing about tim samaras saying the bowdle 2010 ef4 should have been rated ef5, but i cant find where he said this.
 * ive herd that one of the 4 pilger ef4 tornadoes did ef5 damage but they didnt because they wernt sure if a car pushed all the debris off the slab, i cant find this info but i remember seeing it.
 * ive herd one of the 2013 nov ef4 and the cullman april 2011 EF4 almost got rated ef5 but cause of politic reasons they force there rating to stay ef4? i was hearing alot about this from people who where cleaning up the damage.
 * so ya there is alot of possible tornadoes to add but i couldnt find proof yet execpt for the manchester that tim put his probe in, i was able to find that one's proof.
 * Grazulis on his twitter reveald one tornado that should have been rated f5, i added that sometime this year , it migth be possible that we could contact him for some small questions of a few of the so call strong ef4? (that one from 1990 since its like almost as if all of nws forgot about it but did the worst damage in terms of how far it trew somthing heavy) but he is still also making his book that will cover all the tornadoes from the past to 2019 , we are all waiting for it , so we cant go questioning him all the time. sorry for my bad grammar my original language is french. Joshoctober16 (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I as I mentioned on Joshoctober16's talk page, I attended a talk where Tim Samaras said the Bowdle tornado should have been rated EF5. He gave the talk at Penn State Behrend on January 10, 2012. Not sure if we could cite that. A little searching shows a local news story covering the talk, but not the relevant segment. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * yes as long as you have one good cite link it can be added, im also looking up for the pampa tornado, siad to have wind speed mesured by video of 250 to 300 mph, the main issue is by who, here is some example's |link? |250 mph Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily need an online link. I seem to recall that Grazulis found winds in the 300 mph range for the Pampa tornado, but I don't have his update for 1995. In exciting news, apparently Grazulis is planning to release an update for significant tornadoes through 2019! So, that will probably be a good resource. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * well uh the need a online link part, a guy (seen above of this page) removed almost half of the tornadoes cause he keeps on saying we need proof , somthing to do that he is a very politicish person or whatever, anyhow i cant get the book , id wish to get it to look into it , but ya its discontinued.... wish there was a way for us to look at the page , or if anyone still has the book and look for any clue.Joshoctober16 (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't give too much weight to the arguments above, but yeah, I guess you would need a link for something like that. I had been thinking that you don't need a link if it's in a book like Significant Tornadoes. We might see if it's included in the new Grazulis book, both perhaps we won't be able to add Bowdle. I think I might be able to contact someone who has a copy of the 1992-1995 update, through, to verify a possible F5 intensity for the 1995 Pampa tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Apparently, there might been a few copies at some libraries (depending on the branch and library system). I'll see if I can get a copy there.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that is nice of you, but uh dont they cost like 300$ or somthing? , also i have noted a possible tornado that happend i think around 1990-1992 got removed , and the proof of it was from them books , il repost back to see what one it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it was apparently the April 26, 1991	Oologah, Oklahoma Tornado that got removed with no reason, some one try to look up this tornado if you have the book.Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:02, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I Have Grazulis' book for tornadoes through 1991. It says nothing about the Oologah tornado being a possible F5. I don't know if the 1995 update says anything different. When was this tornado taken off the list? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * found it as Revision as of 00:04, 29 March 2014 by TornadoInformation12 saying (I have reason to believe that this is a result of original research) not sure what this means — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs)
 * I think it needed an reference to prove it was a "possible" F5/EF5.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was going to check it for a few weeks from the library if they have it (instead of buying a copy). However, TornadoLGS already has the book (I'll still check it out though). I don't think any library has the 1995 update, nor Grazulis' book/paper for F5/EF5 tornadoes; all of them are out of print.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not the only person to work on this article who has access to the book. While I'm always willing to check if there's a question about a specific tornado, I expect that any tornado mentioned as an F5/possible F5 in Significant Tornadoes is already on this list. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * apperntly the so call possible mention of it came from the (Grazulis, Thomas P. (2001). F5-F6 Tornadoes. St. Johnsbury, VT: The Tornado Project.), is this a book or a site that dosent work? also can you guys check the 2 last us tornadoes that are under pending in that book? (ya i know one was 1999 but the so call proof link of it broke) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Grazulis (2001) has Halls4521 says, it's a book that has proven far more elusive than Significant Tornadoes. My book makes no mention of the Pecos County tornado as a possible F5. The only source I've seen referring to that tornado as a possible F5 is the extremeplanet blog. Not sure how that got in, but it was decided a while back that personal blogs such as that were not sufficiently reliable sources. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ok so 2 things first anyone have the f5-f6 book? if no one has it how in the world did they put the cite for it? also when i look back at the archive thing its all over the place, some agree some disagree some are not sure to put blogs in , it seems that that its sorta ok to put blogs for proof if the maker is well proven to be a creditable sorce , and both sides have points , there are a few errors in his post , however it uses info from stuff that have been lost from the internet and shows proof that for some reason nws dose'nt even talk about ex:smithville tornado deep ground scouring , a other thing is anyone have a way to get this to work? broken link from noaa that might be very importent it seems  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's much mor difficult to find thanSignificant Tornadoes, but it's out there. Looking at the page history, Evolauxia first added it as a reference back in 2006., do you have this book? Looking back at things, it seems it's ok to use the Extremeplanet, if there's nothing else, since he cites some pretty authoritative sources. I emailed the author not long ago since I think he may have F5/F6 Tornadoes and the 1995 update for Significant Tornadoes. I doubt there's a way to dig up the dead NWS links. The NWS has taken down a lot of its pages on outbreaks and single tornadoes in the past few years and, unfortunately, I don't think we had many of them archived, if any. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * while looking at this blog i think i say he seems to be creditable enough, he has done his own damage survey(as in went there to survey the damage) and it says in the 2 cites i posted this (Personal Damage Survey Conclusions: Due to my belief that the Enhanced Fujita Scale grossly underestimates winds in violent tornadoes, the wind ranges I utilize are based on my research, discussions with wind engineers and comparisons between known surface readings and adjacent damage indicators in past tornadoes. My wind estimates are significantly higher than those employed by the National Weather Service.) note this part (the wind ranges I utilize are based on my research, discussions with wind engineers and comparisons between known surface readings and adjacent damage indicators in past tornadoes.) discussions with wind engineers part seems to suggest he has more background that seems more creditable, also note that if i am correct the ef scale for canada the ef5 wind range start is a bit higher if im correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on i ran into a confusing problem with canadas ef scale... take a look its 195 mph for them.... using 5 second gust, also im wondering if we should add all the ef4 tornado with wind speeds of 200 mph since some in nws say 200 mph is for ef5 frame house damage , when other say its for ef4 frame house damage , and the fact it was for sure gona be 200 mph in the early stage. Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't add those tornadoes as it would be WP:OR. A tornado should only be added to this list if the source explicitly says that it was or might have been an F5/EF5. The 195 vs 200 mph difference probably isn't worth considering. Realistically, I don't think a damage-based survey can determine wind speeds with that degree of accuracy. Even then, the fact that Canada uses a 5-secpnd gust while the U.S. uses a 3-second gust would mean that wind speed estimates are not entirely equivalent.TornadoLGS (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a print/paper version of F5-F6 Tornadoes. I could ask Grazulis if it's okay to upload/share. Some old books are available here with permission and he might give it for that booklet. He's working on an update for Significant Tornadoes through at least 2019. F5-F6 Tornadoes is credible enough to cite although this article has been problematic on non-credible edits since not long after its inception. Evolauxia (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ive been wondering since the F5-F6 book? is no longer in print ive been wondering if he will do a update for it like the significant tornado books if not ive been wondering if it will be reprinted? if not then i wonder if the whole book can be allowed to be posted online as a PFD file, also uh that link old books as in the f5-f6 tornado book or significant tornado list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshoctober16 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * When I get the chance, and if it's all right, I'll link this NWS (Norman County, OK) site to some of the tornadoes it mentions that's in this article/list (or maybe the sites it is linked to).   Tornado Data, Information and Links     --Halls4521 (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's another link (from a NOAA site). https://www.spc.noaa.gov/exper/outbreaks/outbreaks-small.php --Halls4521 (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)