Talk:Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022

Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022
Round Rock ef2 contained multivortex signatures on at least two videos, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hguqWlHwMng&t=50s" and "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKPilYNLQR0" towards the end. Following that, NWS alert for Vicksburg contained information of spotter confromation. Might be useful information. Ravonreck1 (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm closing the request as this is just informational. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Elgin Tornado?
There have been numerous reports of a Tornado in Elgin, with confirmed video footage from multiple independent witnesses, and yet there seems to be no official confirmation of said tornado on this page. I would add it myself, but I don't know where to look for the proper confirmation. It took place on March 21st, in the afternoon, and the county would be Bastrop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.242.125.18 (talk) 15:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It will be added when a survey comes in. United States Man (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Ohio-WV Tornado, 23rd
Radar images of supercell/tornado east of wheeling West Virginia https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vTFrjVV_VS9qtpZpSvSiM2d1YZDW0aML9GUCtLIY3Twch7MZ4Pot6dyqYdQg-cGbXxPdJHu_jRG6ccx/pub (been published to web) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravonreck1 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see any tornado reports so until I see otherwise, this outbreak will remain at the time of March 21-22. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * NWS issued a warning, however it could have just been a mesocyclone rotation, that didnt drop a tornado. Following that, it is from the same storm, but ¯\_(ツ)_/

BULLETIN - EAS ACTIVATION REQUESTED TORNADO WARNING NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE PITTSBURGH PA 456 PM EDT WED MAR 23 2022 THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN PITTSBURGH HAS ISSUED A WAS LOCATED NEAR BARNESVILLE, MOVING NORTHEAST AT 35 MPH. HAZARD...TORNADO AND QUARTER SIZE HAIL. SOURCE...RADAR INDICATED ROTATION. TORNADO...RADAR INDICATED
 * AT 456 PM EDT, A SEVERE THUNDERSTORM CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A TORNADO

$$ Ravonreck1 (talk) 01:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Tuscaloosa flooding and OR
I definitely heard about some Tuscaloosa flooding, which has picked up news stories here, here and here. My question is whether it would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH to add them to the article; I think the last one clears that up, but I'm only 90% sure at this point, so I'm reaching out here. Skarmory  (talk •   contribs)  02:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are sources what would be OR about it? It should be in a non-tornadic impacts section (although you could possibly cover flooding in more of the state and not just Tuscaloosa). United States Man (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the question is whether it is SYNTH to say that the flooding was related to the tornadoes. I don't think it's a big deal in this case, but an adequate source should not be hard to find in any case. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Take your pick TornadoLGS (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added some info – not great, but it's a start. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  04:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * following that, is anybody aware of non-tornadic deaths, such as flooding or something else? Ravonreck1 (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

NWS Jackson surveys
NWS Jackson just came out with damage surveys. It's a bit late for me right now and I'm not at the top of my game, though, so I can't really add it at the moment. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * They have been placed already. Thank you for finding the source and reports. Mjeims (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-south tornadoes
The map that contains confirmed tornado warnings does not include all tornadoes from this outbreak, including a confirmed tornado in North Carolina, I believe there was a confirmed tornado in the north, KY, IND, OH. The map is a bit misleading to people who are not following this outbreak. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravonreck1 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 24 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there were tornadoes in the north, per this. I also don't see any tornadoes reported in North Carolina, either. Severe  storm  28  11:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * A tornado was confirmed in Ohio on the 23rd, so I moved the page to include it. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * following that, there was a lot of warning in ky, ind, nc, va, I find it a bit hard to believe there wasnt a brief spin-up Ravonreck1 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There also was that hook echo on radar with that Tornado warning I posted above, anybody see reports on that? Ravonreck1 (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop using this section to post comments concerning yesterday's weather. When and if tornadoes are surveyed they will be added to this page. United States Man (talk) 17:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bowie Twin Tornadoes
The NOAA Damage assessment toolkit plus weather.gov radar confirms they are twin tornadoes, meaning that information should be added to their summaries. Would like your opinion, since you removed that BOLD addition that was sourced, without an edit summary explanation. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see that on DAT. Radar is OR. United States Man (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Timestamps show they were on the ground at the same time, and same town. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, how would the NWS radar be Original research? Any link to the DAT that is more than a week old will not show the event, therefore if weather.gov radar is OR, that is OR. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources do not explicitly list them as twin tornadoes, so making that claim off the timestamps is WP:SYNTH. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will cave on the twin tornado part, but USM’s claim that weather.gov radar is OR needs to be assessed, because if that is OR, then DAT is OR for anything older than 1 week (Since DAT, when you open it, always shows the most recent week.) Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay? All you have to do is adjust the dates on DAT. Your observation of radar is OR because you are looking at it and judging what you think it is. United States Man (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't think you have a good idea of what WP:OR is. You may need to do research before editing. United States Man (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood. I will wait for a source before directly adding that information.  Also, would appreciate you adding more to an edit summary other than “rmv”, especially information that does not appear to be vandalism. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Jacksboro tornado Radar image
This is the GIF on where the Jacksboro tornado was produced. Up to anyone on if this should be included. Severe storm  28  19:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Its tough deciding if it is pertinent to use it. It is a great work, but would only be needed if a section for the Jacksboro tornado is created. It may be another concern for discussion, if we want to create an individual section for the Jacksboro tornado. Then, it would great to have this GIF present in it. Mjeims (talk) 21:45, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Use Aon or not?
An edit war on this page in late July forced an RFC at WP:RSN. The RFC concluded Aon was generally reliable, but USM continues to remove it from the article despite Aon and NOAA representing two different things. So, should Aon be added to this article?

This might need to be an RFC, but for now I don’t plan on it. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 16:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Curtesy ping to as they were mentioned but not pinged. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not opposed to it. I think it's a useful source since NCDC records often have no damage cost information, even for tornadoes that caused significant damage. It's already used in hurricane articles. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:27, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the best explanation of the difference between Aon and NOAA (NCDC) was presented by in that recent RfC. To quote them:
 * Optimally both figures would be used in an article because they measure different things, and the inclusion of both would give a fuller picture. Let me preface this by straightway acknowledging this is a limited, highly flawed illustration, but... Let's say there's a storm that hits the area where Bob has a tomato farm. The storm damages Bob's house, barn, some of his crops, several neighboring businesses, and there is resulting flooding that takes out the bridge. The damaged buildings from the storm, plus the bridge, are added up and included in NOAA's numbers. There was some damaged to Bob's crops, so that is added to the second set of NOAA numbers I looked at. However, Bob and all his friends now have to drive an extra 30 miles to cross a different bridge to get their tomatoes to the tomato Warehouse. It costs them extra money. Bob can't find hired hands to pick his tomatoes because they're all hired fixing buildings and bridges. So some of his leftover crops wither on the vines, and when he does hire it costs more money. Come to find out the tomato processing plant where the warehouse cooperative sends its tomatoes was wiped out in the storm (building included in NOAA), so the processing plant loses a ton of money in tomatoes it cant process and sell, and Bob has to find an entirely different place to sell his tomatoes, further costing him money. Bob's taxes go up to help repair the bridge, and the increase in his price to cover the taxes goes to the warehouse, the processor, the distributor, and the retailor. These are all economic losses, not physical losses, that are included in AON's figures. Some readers will be more interested in the physical loss, it is easily relatable regarding "what were the immediate effects of the storm", while the AON numbers give a long-term picture. Why use one instead of the other? They are both reliable for separate information.
 * So based on that really well-thought-out and explanation between the two, I would support adding both Aon & NOAA damage totals when needed. This however does not mean I support only Aon. If we need only one, then I will vote NOAA as it is the US’s standard for weather information. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * P.S. I would like to point out, that I still personally disagree with adding any Aon damage totals to Wikipedia infoboxes. In the article text is one thing, but NOAA is and will always be the go-to damage total used in academic papers, RS Media, and general conversations. I know there is a difference, but adding Aon damage totals to the infobox, to me at least, feels like we are taking the credibility out of the NOAA damage totals, which have been used for countless articles, all without Aon damage total interference. I do agree with USM on the aspect that NOAA is the true official source for weather information in relation to the United States. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't support using Aon as including radically different damage figures for weather events will lead to much misunderstanding to the average reader. Typically, damage costs account for property damage only, so that is why NOAA totals should be displayed here. United States Man (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You’ve iterated that multiple times in the RFC, and consensus ruled against you. How much longer is this going to persist? 74.101.118.197 (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm entitled to state my opinion as much as and anywhere I please, anon. United States Man (talk) 01:22, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stating your opinion and reverting edits are different matters, though. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the relevance of that statement? United States Man (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You've been reverting edits that add AON as a source, rather than simply stating that you disagree with the consensus, which I understand why this discussion is taking place. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The consensus was whether it could be considered reliable, not whether it should be added to this article. This is a different issue. United States Man (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is you did exactly what you shouldn't do, which is mislabel the numbers. Your reversion says "total damages" which is incorrect.  The number you revert to is total property damages.  The entire damages are better represented by the AON numbers.  On the other hand, the version you reverted also did not do a proper job of explaining the numbers, so the poor reader is just left guessing which is right.  I would put both numbers in, but label them properly.  Please!  Cite NOAA as property damage (+ crop damage if that is included) and AON as estimated economic damage.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As it is, since your point is that people might get confused about the damage totals, the fact that we have two reliable sources giving different totals seems to indicate a degree of uncertainty in damage estimates anyway. In that case we could present it as a range. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's an infobox parameter, not something that I did. All I did was maintain status quo, so do not come here making accusations. United States Man (talk) 02:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * A range would not be a good idea because the Aon numbers are so inflated that the range would be way too wide to be useful. United States Man (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Frankly I think you're being downright disruptive, USM. Thanks for reverting me when I was trying to demonstrate what could be done, which was to include both numbers and label them correctly.  I would like consensus from the group to proceed to do just that, given this obstruction.  And USM, you are just plain wrong, wrong.  The numbers are not inflated.  They are what they are, a measure of economic damage, as opposed to property damage.  This is approaching intellectual dishonesty.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You think I'm being disruptive for trying to maintain simplicity in these articles with an accurate government source? United States Man (talk) 02:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, I think you're being disruptive because you are suppressing a better understanding of the storm through the use of reliable sources. I think you being disruptive by calling a source "inflated" when it is clearly not.  Simple is not necessarily better, and I can't demonstrate what I mean because you revert me, and I'm not going to edit war, which you seem to be more than willing to do against the developing general consensus of this page.  So there's three areas of disruptive editing.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is probably unfair, and I retract and strike the statement. In fact, not only did you undo, but you correctly labeled the data.  I think that reads rather nice, with no confusion to the reader.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If you all insist on this, it needs to have consistent formatting across all articles (with the example being this page). That goes for all you IP hoping users as well. United States Man (talk) 02:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If consensus is ultimately decided to use both figures, (probably shouldn't happen here, too limited an audience) would it make sense to modify the Infobox storm template parameters to better accommodate it. Are both figures generally available for U.S. storms?  For instance, I would imagine the NOAA figures go back further, so it won't always be possible/practical to have both numbers.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 02:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * NOAA figures are available for every event. Aon will likely only be for major events. When Aon is used it can be plainly stated within the current damage parameter. United States Man (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with the format how it is now. I will say that I believe this only works for Aon + NOAA as NCDC. I however will not agree to include Aon damage totals when it is a NOAA damage total from the Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Diasters list. On the FAQ, they state, "More than one dozen public and private sector data sources help capture the total, direct costs (both insured and uninsured) of the weather and climate events. These costs include: physical damage to residential, commercial, and municipal buildings; material assets (content) within buildings; time element losses such as business interruption or loss of living quarters; damage to vehicles and boats; public assets including roads, bridges, levees; electrical infrastructure and offshore energy platforms; agricultural assets including crops, livestock, and commercial timber; and wildfire suppression costs, among others. However, these disaster costs do not take into account losses to: natural capital or environmental degradation; mental or physical healthcare related costs, the value of a statistical life (VSL); or supply chain, contingent business interruption costs. Therefore, our estimates should be considered conservative with respect to what is truly lost, but cannot be completely measured due to a lack of consistently available data. Based on that statement, for those damage totals, only NOAA should be included. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the "Therefore, our estimates should be considered conservative with respect to what is truly lost, but cannot be completely measured due to a lack of consistently available data" as NOAA is saying the data would not be present, which means Aon damage totals would also not be accurate as the data is not present. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

NCDC and SPC records are tricky. Prior to 1994, official records only sort damage totals into groups based on order of magnitude, rather than the actual value. So, for instance, any value between $50 million and $500 million defaults to $250 million. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Physical Damage would be included in the Economic impact, I would not add the numbers together because the NOAA numbers would be a subset of the AON numbers, not independent of them. (I may be misunderstanding you.) Also, I think it would be more accurate to state "Estimated Economic Loss" as AON's numbers are built upon an actuarially sound model built on multiple data sources, but it is still a model.  I'm edit conflicting all over the place, so I'm calling it a night., I still think you were wrong, but I owe you an apology, and as I made the comments in a public manner, I will also apologize in a public manner.   78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 03:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I could somewhat agree with you with NOAA billions, but I strongly disagree with your comment in small above about only using NCDC, and articles for a while have been using Aon. When added Aon to Tornado outbreak of July 28-29, 2021, it went unpunished. Now, there all of a sudden seems to be an issue on Aon, leading to frequent debates that really shouldn’t be happening. 74.101.118.197 (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not have a problem using Aon if a NOAA total has not been published nor added by another editor. Also, my comment above was not just saying “Only using NCDC”, but more or less to show that I am “ok” using Aon damage totals when/if NOAA has published totals in the NCDC, but not ok if NOAA has it on the billion dollar disaster total (as that is also very, very much different than the NCDC totals). If you are referring to my small comment/opinion in the P.S. very early on in the discussion, I stand by that 100% as it is my personal opinion and editors can have an opinion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

That said: Here is why we should not use Aon + NOAA when it is a NOAA total on the billion-dollar disaster list. A good example is Tornado outbreak of December 10–11, 2021. I went ahead and added the Aon total for the moment as an example and to discuss here, but I plan on removing it shortly. The NOAA totals are in fact different and with the amount of academic credibility and publication that billion-dollar disaster list gets, I think only the NOAA total should be used in the info boxes. A CBS News article published a over a week after the outbreak was saying “estimated $3.5 billion in damage”, which was using the then NOAA damage total. The total was increased by $400 million, but nevertheless, still using the NOAA total. Another example is this NY Times article which was updated as late as March 2022 (3 months later) saying a damage total of $3.7 billion. Again, the NOAA total at that time (later increased to the $3.9 billion it is now). The RS Media use the NOAA total, especially for the large, well-known events that make the billion-dollar disaster list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Aon: $5.1+ billion
 * 1) NOAA BDD list: $3.9 billion
 * 2) NOAA NCDC: Just under $60 million
 * Note: I just self-reverted the addition of the Aon damage total to the outbreak's infobox (December 10/11's) as I stated and showed evidence above that they should not be added when it is a NOAA billion-dollar disaster total due to RS media using that total over Aon. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please don’t make test edits. A WMF employee got blocked for testing edits and immediately reversing them. It is, at least, WP:POINTy. Also, I haven’t heard of any damage totals, unlike the Dec 10-11 outbreak. But a lot of people would be more inclined to believe it caused $850 million then less then $50 million, given the damage. Also, 78.26 IS a financial expert. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Test edits? Technically, it was originally agreed we could add Aon damage totals to infoboxes, but since I originally added the Aon damage totals to the Dec 10-11 outbreak, I self-reverted (which is perfectly allowed) as I explained here that NOAA billion-dollar damage totals are more well-known (through reliable sources) than the Aon damage totals. Not really sure what part of your comment that is specific towards, because we seem to be saying similar but different things. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Self reverting is allowed and what you did is technically ok, but frowned upon. 108.30.32.252 (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the WMF employee was blocked for making vandalism test edits. Making an edit to see if it improves the encyclopedia is ok, and if it doesn't work out you self-revert.  That's an entirely different concept than vandalism.  Also to clarify, I don't consider myself a financial expert (but thank you for the compliment!)  I have some expertise in several areas of insurance, and tend to approach the topic from that mindset.  I think the AON numbers ought to be included in the article when available for a more complete picture of the disaster's effects, but I can understand 's viewpoint regarding including the numbers in the infobox.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

So as like a closing/clarification step, here what I seem to read from this discussion: I think that was interpreted correctly. If not, please say something. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Aon damage totals are a reliable source for damage total information (RS Noticeboard discussion conclusion) and can be added to an article's content.
 * 2) Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storms infobox if NOAA has not published a damage total.
 * 3) Aon damage totals are acceptable for an articles/storm infobox if a NOAA NCDC damage total is also present. This would have both damage totals in the infobox (format done to this article, Tornado outbreak of March 21–23, 2022.
 * 4) Aon damage totals are ok for an article's content (aka text portion of the article), but should not be added in the infobox if a NOAA Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Diasters damage total is present, due to RS use of it over the Aon damage total.
 * I think that's a pretty good interpretation. It's possible to quibble about minor details endlessly, of course, which wouldn't be productive. My only concern is that if this is to be interpreted as a wider MOS best practice, it should at least be brought to a wider audience (WikiProject Weather?) and not the talk page of a single article.  78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 00:52, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It probably should, but given the Aon discussion rampage since late July, and the fact that another big RFC is on WT:WEATHER about changing colors, plus the big controversial RFC on Talk:July-August 2022 United States floods (which also escalated to WP:RSN and WP:FRINGEN), might be best to wait. 47.21.202.18 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)