Talk:2011 Smithville tornado

Title

I've been thinking a bit on moving this page to a different title, but I am considering two possible titles; either 2011 Smithville tornado, to maintain consistency with other tornado article titles, or 2011 Smithville–Shottsville tornado. I know that Cyclonebiskit previously moved this page away from a title that mentioned Shottsville. Smithville was indeed the main story of this tornado but, nonetheless, nearly a third of the fatalities were in Shottsville, which is significant. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

NWS Memphis Factual Accuracy Dispute

Communication with NWS for reasons not about this tornado indicated that something(s) in this “are unconfirmed or outright internet lore”. I went ahead and added a factual accuracy template to the article and I’ll start trying to figure out what is the inaccuracy. I know one source is dead and has a broken archived URL, so maybe its something related with that. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Did some light research. The pickup-into-water-tower incident seems true and is backed up by references, as is the missing Chevy. However, page 2 of this paper notes that "Early reports on the internet that a steel drainage culvert had been ripped out of the ground by the tornado (Fig. 8) proved erroneous," perhaps corresponding to this sentence in the tornado summary: ... A metal waste pipe was unearthed and pulled out of the ground along a road, a nearby manhole cover was torn away, the ring was also pulled out of the ground leaving a concrete hole behind, and a fire hydrant was ripped from the ground, pulling up five feet of metal piping in the process. ...

That sentence is followed by three references, none of which support those specific damage reports. That might be one of the bugs here. Penitentes (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Noting some off-wiki communication with a group of people in college studying meteorology plus a degreed meteorologist. It appears the error is probably the metal waste pipe sentence. Since non of the references support it, that is most likely the error. I will remove it and remove the accuracy template in the process. Thanks for the help Penitentes! I’m planning to start some accuracy checks on all of the tornado articles, so you might see a few more accuracy templates in the future. Obviously, this will be a multi-year project, lol. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That sounds great! I was actually checking out the Joplin tornado page the other day and noticing some non-referenced/outdated material and I may make that a mini-project for the New Year as well. Theoretically we're in the quiet WX season (lol) and can get some work done... cheers! Penitentes (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Extra comment for the record: Found an AMS source that actually states the pipe being ripped out of the ground was untrue. [1] Elijahandskip (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

January 2023 factual accuracy dispute template

Was alerted off-Wikipedia (by multiple people) that the sentence A few homes were swept from their foundations with such force that the anchor bolts were ripped out of the slab, leaving pockets of missing concrete along the foundation perimeter is unsourced and (from what I was told) untrue. I am going to do some digging into it to either find a source or remove the information. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

After searching Google and Google scholar (6 pages worth of things) as well as Academia.edu for any sign of “anchor bolts”, I found reference to homes having them, but absolutely nothing about them being ripped out of concrete. Based on last months findings that fictional information was in the article, I’m assuming this sentence is as well so I am removing the unsourced sentence. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The F5/EF5 list cites this page, which I remember as describing some incredible phenomena. However, since I last read the page it has been paywalled and I don't remember the exact contents. This could be the source though. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe. I’ll try to reach out to Tornado Talk to figure out. Nevertheless, until we can get some verification on if that source mentions it or not, it should stay out of the article. After having NWS Memphis say the article was factually inaccurate, then actually finding a paper where NWS point blank said the part that was removed was true internet lore, I’m leaning more on the side of the anchor bolts being ripped out of concrete as being fake as well. The fact no sources (NWS or academia.edu papers) mention it whatsoever is giving me that belief. A lot of the other parts, like the SUV and structures being well-anchors is easily found on multiple sources. But nothing about being ripped from concrete. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

There is/was specific users here who always seemed to add things from sources no one else could find, especially before widespread use of the DAT made it easier to see damage. United States Man (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

A new front picture...

Pictures indeed exist of this EF5 tornado, and I would like to forward this photo of the tornado at its peak strength. The picture of EF5 damage can be kept, but perhaps should be moved into the summary.

Smithville EF5 Tornado (Reddit) Aquario (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

You can't just "put" that there. It must have proper licensing through Wikimedia to keep from being deleted. It if isn't yours or in the public domain, it can't be added. United States Man (talk) 23:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

The image is saved to my account, as well as being of higher quality than the current page image; while certainly a picture of the Smithville Tornado itself, it is of low resolution. I ask for verification to add it to Wikimedia. Aquario (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

United States Man is correct. Images used in Wikipedia must conform to Wikimedia's licensing rules, which require that images be either "explicitly freely licensed" or "in the public domain". The image you linked is a screenshot of this YouTube video, which is unfortunately not freely licensed nor in the public domain, so far as I can tell. Penitentes (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The title picture...

This article currently carries a picture of the New Wren EF3, which was a direct predecessor to the Smithville EF5. It is my suggestion that a different picture must be approved, as while this is a tornado from the same storm, it is not the Smithville EF5. Aquario (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Checks out. I've reverted the image swap and left a comment on the image file's talk page on Wikimedia. Penitentes (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Smithville tornado image

Hey United States Man, you probably missed it, but that is the Smithville tornado. The previous image which was validly removed was renamed. JoleBruh uploaded the new image to the exact name of the original image, which was renamed. Do you have another reason for it to be removed, because the original reason was already resolved prior to your removal. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Title photo

I know that the individual who took that photo is Darnell Collums, and I was able to find that specific photo on a reddit post... I've seen it used in countless videos/posts etc. and I would like to use it here but it seems the original source of the photo is certainly gone. It's the best photo that exists of it and using the low quality youtube video as the title photo is offputting to me. Not really sure where to go from here. ProjectInsta (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Went ahead and reverted back to the youtube video photo, would be really grateful if we could band together to find the source of the HD photo! ProjectInsta (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)