Jump to content

Talk:2007 Brooklyn tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Move

[edit]

I believe the article should be moved, if not to New York City tornado of 2007, then to Brooklyn tornado of 2007. Not only is New York City more accurate than Brooklyn (it touched down on Staten Island), but having a year at the beginning is against conventions (I think) and IMO ugly. -RunningOnBrains 11:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support that move. CrazyC83 14:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support move of date. Virtually all local coverage refers to it as the Brooklyn tornado. New York City while technically accurate conveys the sense that it hit Manhattan so I favor keeping Brooklyn in the name. Americasroof 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I originally titled it with Brooklyn, and moved it back to this name because it's primarily notable for its strength and destruction in Brooklyn. The damage in Staten Island was mostly to trees at an EF1 strength, and Staten Island has had three previous tornadoes on record, while Brooklyn has none. Also agree that New York City could be confused with Manhattan, e.g. 2006 New York City plane crash, 2007 New York City steam explosion. As for the date, it is common to put this first in disaster articles, and especially tornadoes; e.g. see: Category:Tornadoes of 2007 and Category:Tornadoes of 2006, etc. Dhaluza 22:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, but it just seems less encyclopedic that way, and puts the less important date before the more important place and event. I would support changing all of those. As for keeping Brooklyn as opposed to New York City, I am currently neutral, both sides have good arguments, and I'm ok with it either way.-RunningOnBrains 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the date is probably not needed at all, because there are no other notable Brooklyn tornadoes, so we could eliminate they year entirely. I added it per common convention. For the front/back issue, in a case where either practice is common, a change from one acceptable form to another is just thrashing around. I moved it back in part because the move was incomplete, and it was easier to undo rather than finish. Dhaluza 16:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the for what it's worth department the 1960 New York air disaster involved a collision of airliners over Staten Island with one airliner crashing into Staten Island and the other crashing into the Brooklyn Park Slope neighborhood. Coverage of that crash tended to emphasize the Brooklyn angle since it killed people on the ground there (even though most of the people killed died in Staten Island). Americasroof 16:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditmas or Kensington/Ocean Parkway or Ocean Avenue

[edit]

The current revision (Saturday night about 11 eastern) has changed the sentence to:

The tornado then headed east and touched down again in the Flatbush neighborhood of Kensington at approximately 6:40 am EDT. Approximately 30 trees were uprooted along Ocean Parkway.

The New York Post reports http://www.nypost.com/seven/08102007/news/regionalnews/from_staten_is__to_bklyn_regionalnews_john_doyle__jeremy__olshan_and_lukas_i__alpert.htm


At about 6:40 a.m. it touched down in Ditmas Park, where it knocked down about 30 trees along Ocean Avenue between Beverley Road and Church Avenue.

Consequently I'm putting a cn on the new info.

Americasroof 03:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After much searching, I found that the Post article was based, most likely, on an incorrect early statement by the National Weather Service. The later, revised statement by them, already cited on this page, corrects the street name to Ocean Parkway. I've now linked to that reference to support the Ocean Parkway claim. Also, although the storm may have done some damage in Ditmas Park, all the sources that describe the damage in detail point to the ending of the tornado in Kensington and adjoining Prospect Park South. --Alan W 05:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many thanks for going the extra mile. I thought you were probably right because I saw Kensington in various articles. As you mentioned the neighborhoods are fluid and relatively close together. Thanks again! Americasroof 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied from a public domain source

[edit]

The article seems well-written and for the most part well-sourced. In my view it is too bad that the tag saying approximately that "contains text from public domain source" is needed. It impugns the work done by wikipedia editors. Can't the specific material from the one source be identified and put in proper quotes, then remove that tag, instead? Just because some text is public domain doesn't mean it does not need to be referenced just like any other text. And if it is referenced properly, put in quotes as necessary, then that tag would not be needed. doncram (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Americasroof removed the "USGovernment" template that was the offending tag, and made it an external link. Assuming that means that there is no unsourced material copied from the one source, this is fine with me. Thanks. doncram (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the template was ever used to begin with as this article from the start was done by multiple editors was pretty well sourced. I'll try to turn it into a inline reference shortly. Thanks for spotting the problem. Americasroof (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single Tornado

[edit]

The final track records of 2007 show that there was only one EF-2 tornado that touched down in the Brooklyn area. The damages were not shown on the file as well. The tornado touched down at 10:22 UTC (6:22 EST) at 40.63N, 74.11W. The tornado tracked for 5.9 miles and had a maximum width of 100 yards. 9 people were injured in the event. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were indeed two tornadoes, as shown in the NCDC archives. One touched down on Staten Island, the second in Brooklyn. -RunningOnBrains 21:19, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm...why are the two official sources contradicting? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The wording in the article is confusing, but I think the sources can be reconciled. There was only one EF-2 tornado, and that was in Brooklyn. Somewhat earlier an EF-1 tornado was recorded in Staten Island. It could have been part of the same storm system, with the winds weakening as they crossed the Narrows, then reconcentrating into the EF-2 tornado in Brooklyn. So maybe this was on the border of being one tornado that changed in force, and two separate tornadoes, and the classification could be either way. I can't be sure from the NOAA accounts, but it looks like this is possible. So there was only one Brooklyn tornado, but there was also an earlier, weaker Staten Island twister that was part of the same storm system and might possibly really have been the same tornado--or in some technical sense might have been classifiable into a second one. --Alan W (talk) 04:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The official tornado report here states that a tornado touched down in Staten Island, then dissipated near Verrazano Narrows. Meanwhile, a second circulation formed a bit to the north, eventually touching down as a second tornado in Brooklyn. I couldn't find the contradicting source, where is it? -RunningOnBrains 05:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consequently, I believe it would be proper to rename this article New York City tornadoes of 2007 (2007 at the end per WP:SEVERE and WP:METEO naming conventions).-RunningOnBrains 05:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the SPC WCM page, at the bottom there are the CSV files, download the 2000-2007_torn.csv file. Once you download it, open it and go to tornado #866. It is the only tornado in NY on August 8. It does say it was an EF2 but shows no damage and no indication of the earlier EF1. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The .csv file seems to be in error, although at some point the survey may have been ammended. IrRegardless, I have sent an email to Greg Carbin, the SPC Warning Coordination Meteorologist, hopefully he will respond.-RunningOnBrains 07:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you, he'll be able to clear this up for us :). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renamed and lowered class of the article

[edit]

I've moved the article to include the second tornado and lowed the class to start since the article is lacking comprehensiveness. It's lacking responses to the tornado and the full impacts of the flooding produced by the thunderstorm. The MTA has a hefty report on the whole thing, since it basically shut down the subways with a months worth of rain in a few hours. Cyclonebiskit 06:18, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fatalities

[edit]

In the description given it says that there were no fatalities or injuries linked with the tornado. Yet in the same article it quotes a Daily News article as linking a death ("S.I. driver dies") with the tornado. Which is it? 141.155.130.163 (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The woman's death was not related to the tornado (or even the flooding, really). She had pulled over on the highway and her car was hit from behind. [1]-RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Brooklyn 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Brooklyn 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007 Brooklyn 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:42, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flood death

[edit]

Will we mention the flood death as a non tornadic death, or no? 69.118.232.58 (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This question has already been asked and answered. See the section "Fatalities", above. No one objected to the answer given there, implying a consensus. So I guess the answer is "no". --Alan W (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2007_Brooklyn_tornado&oldid=1196496296"