Talk:Dust Bowl/Archive 1

Archive 1

1

Was it merely co-incidence that the Dust Bowl occurred during the great depression or were there some human factors that altered the geography to make this kind of disaster more common? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.34.206 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2004 (UTC)

there is a lot more to it than 'there was a drought'.

there was a massive immigration to the area in the decades before the 1930s. especially in oklahoma which was supposedly reserved for indians before the late 1880s, and only became a state in 1907.

add in the invention and availability of the gasoline tractor, along with the destruction of the bison, and the number of small farms who had to leave their fields when they went bankrupt without planting crops... the entire ecosystem of the great plains had been transformed in about 20-30 years.

just take the example of the native drought-resistant perennial grasses. they had survived there for hundreds of thousands of years, drought and fire. they had deep roots going down sometimes more than 10 feet. they could survive drought. but they could not survive the massive mechanized plowing. so they are gone, by the millions of acres. so the dirt had nothing to hold it. so when the next big drought comes along, what happens? .... that alone is just one example of something that could have happened during the ecosystem transformation that influenced the situation. lots of people have different theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.170.144 (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2004 (UTC)

Besides the Destruction of the bison, the even bigger problem was the overgrazing of the cattle and sheep. Another big factor was the disc plow. Advocates of dry farming told farmers to disc whenever possible, especially after rain. This created a layer of very fine top soil that was not held down by anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.184.146.251 (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2004 (UTC)

THANX

Hi

That was very helpful

thank you and to wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkavuru (talk • contribs) 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Note about sketchy estimates for human displacements

Some of the math here looks wrong to me: "High-end estimates for the number of displaced Americans are as high as 2.5 million, but the lower value of 300,000 to 400,000 is more probable based upon the 2.3 million population of Oklahoma at the time." This number only accounts for people from Oklahoma (15% of 2.3 million is 340,000 or so) - it assumes nobody from any other state was displaced, which seems incredibly unlikely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.51.237 (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Some retard vandalized this page. I intend to remove the offending text 206.124.94.94 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oop, it's already gone, nifty. 206.124.94.94 11:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look gone to me, I think your retard has returned. This article evidently needs to be locked to keep sociopathic 12 year olds out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotognome (talk • contribs) 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell does the term "White people now a dayz" have to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.191.218.223 (talk) 06:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Our retard's back; probably unsupervised at middle school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acroterion (talk • contribs) 17:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Vandalism

I cleared up some text from the article:

Line removed from main page: "HI IM REILLY I LIKE TO EDIT WIKIPEDIA" Line removed from "Government Response": "Daven is so hot!!!!!!!!"

Regards, Chaoxangel 01:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but please try to check the edit history. That is because vandals often add nonsense and remove good text. If you only remove the non-sense then you end up with a net removal of text as it happened to you. I corrected this [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dust_Bowl&diff=158859845&oldid=158807896] but I thought I give you heads up on it. Thanks Brusegadi 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

This article could use a map

I remember seeing a map of the approximate area that constituted the Dust Bowl in a set of encyclopedias my parents had purchased in 1969. Obviously, that cannot be used, since it is not yet in public domain---indeed, even something published in the 1930s would not yet be in public domain, but seriously, couldn't somebody post a map without having it be a copyright infringement or "original research"? I'd do it if I wasn't such a computer newbie and slowpoke. Maps are good for those of us who are more graphically orientated. Shanoman 16:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Given the nature of the event, it's not unreasonable to expect that there'd be something available from US government sources. MrZaius^talk 17:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

if you use Google images for "dust bowl map" you get many useful maps, I just don't know if any of them can be used, or asked to be used, as I don't know how to check such things. Maybe someone who has some experience with acquiring images can help out. or make a map we can use that won't violate copyrights. Tonerman 23:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The US government is the ideal source, so if you limit your search to site:.gov, that often helps. However, in this case, the NEH is pushing teachers to a copyrighted PBS image, containing a very weak map. [1] - There may not be any easily obtained government maps, although if someone wants to go nuts and issue a FOIA request or contact the FDR/Taft libraries, we might be able to find something. MrZaius^talk 22:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC) PS: This might still be of some use: [2]

I agree with the idea of a map. The statement that the area of the dust bowl "principally lies west of the high plains" does not make any sense to me. West of the high plains is the Rocky Mountains. The High Plains includes eastern New Mexico and Colorado, as well as much of West Texas. I don't know if someone got confused on directions or what. Some of the worst dust bowl areas in Kansas and Oklahoma are EAST of the high plains. It seems to me that the principal area of the dust bowl is the same as the high plains. But I am not an expert in this field. I don't know what the writer is trying to communicate in talking about "west of the high plains". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddwin (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Death toll

How may people died as a result of this? DirkvdM 07:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the population growth rate dropped by 8,9 % during the 30's according to Demographics_of_the_United_States, haven't seen an estimate of hunger-related deaths during the time, possibly not well documented and a matter of opinion. Dreg743 (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

TF2 Map

There is a map in the game Team Fortress 2 by the name of Dustbowl, I think a disambiguation page should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.65.148 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The need for a LEAD

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dust_Bowl&oldid=200057215

This article used to have a lead section, not just two orphaned sentences floating about the TOC. We should consider merging positive changes back into the former LEAD, in my humble opinion. "Overview" sections are generally frowned upon, serving precisely the same role as the article's lead. MrZaius^talk 14:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's the edit that added the overview section to make things easier to track. Graham87 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've turned the overview section back into a proper lead section. Graham87 14:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to it. I've broken it up a little more - Now we might want to move three or four sentences back into the article at large, as we seem to have swung to the other end of the LEAD-size pendulum. Next thing to check: were any useful sources lost in the edits between the former then and now? MrZaius^talk 03:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Nope, nothing was lost; all I did was remove the overview section and merge some paragraphs. Graham87 14:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization

Looking at this article, it feels like two mediocre articles have been squished into one. I'm trying to sort this out, but I'm doing it in small edits. Here's the basic plan for the article organization as I see it:

• causes
  • settlement
    • Economic viability of farming the great plains
    • Short term climate change allowing low-tech farming
  • Prarie grass (including advancements in plow technology allowing it's removal)
  • agricultural techniques (letting fields go fallow, poor irrigation,etc)
  • Environmental contributions (draught, dustclouds preventing rain)
  • The issue of fields being abandoned as a result of the exodus should also be worked in somewhere.
• Timeline and ecological impact of dust storms
  • When the major duststorms occured, what geographic area was affected when, how much soil moved where
• Damages (some better name for this heading, I'm just brainstorming right now)
  • Information related to property damage, loss of crops, etc.
  • Casualties
• Government reaction
• Legacy
  • new innovations and practices invoked as a result of the Dust Bowl
  • Art, fiction, culture, etc.

Input would be appreciated. -Verdatum (talk) 19:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. The article could really use work. I will give it a shot when I find some time.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, forget it. What a mess. Who here can rise to the challenge? Who here has four hours to spare?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Associated with the Great Depression

The Dust Bowl is closely associated with the Great Depression - to the point where one conjures up images of the other. This needs to be established in the lead, however I'm tired of adding material only to have it removed because I didn't cite chapter and verse (even though this falls under the "no-brainer" category). If someone else wants to do the work and add the info, please feel free, but I do believe it needs to have this link made in the opening. For example I've seen several TV news stories on the current financial crisis and the question of whether it's the start of a new Great Depression, and in almost every case two images have been used -- the line-ups for food, etc. in urban areas, and the Dust Bowl. 23skidoo (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree the two events are commonly associated, but I've also read peer-reviewed arguments that their relationship is far weaker than many believe; they just happened to occur in the same time period. I'll try to recall my sources. As far as other people removing properly cited content without a decent justification, well that's just silly. -Verdatum (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The article states nothing of Hoover's response or non-response.--scuro (talk) 03:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Broader scope?

Shouldn't there be more information on the effects of the drought in Canada/Saskatchawan or are there already seperate articles for this? 74.74.219.178 (talk) 22:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC) December 12th 2007

(I've changed the section title since what you're describing is not about neutrality in point of view.)

To answer your question, you're probably quite right. The treatment of the Dust Bowl's effects in Canada could and likely should be expanded. I'd say that, if that's your itch, be bold and scratch it! — Dave (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dustbowls in the Aral Sea

Althoght the term dustbowl originated in North America, is the name for a "natural" phenomen and should then also cover dustbowls around the wolrd such those in the Aral Sea. Dentren | ^Talk 13:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If there are citations available for calling other dust storms "dust bowls," I would suggest writing Dust bowl - Dust Bowl, with a capital B, is a proper noun which refers to a single (albeit prolonged) series of events. MrZaius^talk 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Another option would be to rename/move the article, to "Dust Bowl (1930s North America)", or something like that. It is enough to try to cover these events, not add in other dustbowls around the world.--Parkwells (talk) 01:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Status?

When was the last case of vandalism on here? Maybe it's time to unlock it so I can put a map on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtpck32 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I semi-protected the article because of daily floods of vandalism from people using IP addresses; there has been no vandalism since I protected it on the 4th of February. Which map do you want to add to the article? It would be better to add it to Wikipedia directly if possible, but that also requires an account. Graham87 03:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was to NOT MERGE the articles. The original article, American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940 was renamed History of agriculture in the United States.-- Jminthorne (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

---

I have proposed a merger into this article from American Agricultural Economy in the 1920s-1940. There is significant overlap, and the American Ag article has extremely low visibility. A possible alternative would be simple deletion of the American Ag article and creation of a redirect to Dust Bowl if we didn't think the American Ag article had anything to add here. Thanks! Jminthorne (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That article doesn't have a single link leading to it, so I see little benefit to the redirect. Given the 4 year lack of interest in adding sources to the orphaned piece, deletion might make more sense. High quality sources would make it a better merge candidate. MrZaius^talk 02:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a prod tag. Jminthorne (talk) 03:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

We do not have consensus on a pure deletion of the article, and it has two references now. I think we should append the references and see also sections into this article and change to a redirect. Jminthorne (talk) 22:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The two topics seem quite distinct. The dust bowl matter is quite narrow while the other article has a much wider scope concerning the trends in tractor use, the effect of tariffs, productivity and profitability and so on. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The dust bowl article as written includes causes and effects extending well into the effects you mention. The American Ag article doesn't add anything that isn't said here. Jminthorne (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The initial discussion of a merger actually doesn't make a whole lot of sense, as the essay ties together both this concept and two others. Please note that I advocated deletion of that other piece primarily on the grounds that it was little more than an unencyclopedic and redundant essay on the three topics, not due solely to its overlap with this piece. There's a strong case to be made for the other piece disappearing through AfD, but it makes very little sense to merge the then-linkless orphan with this piece and redirect it here as, again, nothing at all linked to it a week ago. Haven't checked more recently, but any link added since (if indeed any have been added), could surely be done without. MrZaius^talk 07:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, sounds like we're clear that a merge with the article isn't the best option. I have removed the merge tag from this article. Jminthorne (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

De-ethnocentrize

"During early exploration of the Great Plains, the region in which the Dust Bowl occurred was thought unsuitable for agriculture..." Obviously enough, the Great Plains were first explored and settled before 10,000 BC or so, though agriculture was limited until the Europeans arrived. Do we want to rephrase this? -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although it's instructive, you don't have to ask questions like that. Go ahead and make the change. Blanche Poubelle (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Map

This article could do with a map to show the areas worst affected. It seems that it extended beyond the border.

By the way was Utah ever affected? --MacRusgail (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Editing

I am trying to work on this article with needed edits, especially in the lead to provide basic facts up front, and someone keeps reverting my changes, with no explanation but to make it easier to control vandalism. My edits are not vandalism - the article needs work to improve it.--Parkwells (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Parkwells, I didn't mean that your edits were vandalism; in fact they're quite the opposite. I was trying to find a way to automatically undo this edit, which removed the lead image and the first paragraph of the lead section. Unfortunately my edits didn't help with that problem, and I had to restore the lead section manually; I edit-conflicted with you the first time I tried to do that. You didn't undo the vandalism completely with your first edit today, because the vandal made two edits and the undo feature normally undoes just one edit at a time. If you find a similar case in the future, revert the edits rather than undoing them. Graham87 15:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I realized we were both working at the same time. It was hard at first to see what had happened to the article; thanks for fixing/replacing the image, etc. Have usually reverted, but it seemed too many things were going on. Now I'll look at it again.--Parkwells (talk) 15:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Future Dust Bowls - USA

Does the reference of one book on a hypothetical situation and clearly controversial (global warming) need to be mentioned if Wikipedia is to maintain a neutral point of view? User:timtrice —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

The reference of one book on a controversial issue (global warming) may be insufficient in the political culture now prevalent in most Anglo-Saxon countries without a specific clarification. The scientific studies summarized by the book would thus need to be mentioned for Wikipedia to maintain a generally accepted point of view: on an essentially technical subject, the consensus that matters is that among specialists, about which serious uninformed popular opinion will seek reliable knowledge in Wikipedia: the opinion of uninformed laypeople with a political agenda is irrelevant in climatological matters. It therefore seems necessary to mention that the book was endorsed by the scientific community with the 2008 Royal Society prize for popular science writing. AAALRD (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

The picture, "Farmer and two sons during a dust storm" appears to be a copyrighted image owned by Bettman/CORBIS and should actually be dated 1937. Source of info is "American Passages: A History of the United States ISBN 0-495-05067-9. I don't think we can use copyrighted images on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britonkolber (talk • contribs) 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

According to this link, Image:Dust_storm_CimarronCounty_OK.jpg the image is a public domain work created by Arthur Rothstein for the Farm Security Administration, part of the United States government from [3]. If you have evidence to refute the uploader's claim, please do so at the Image page. However, being in the public domain, one would expect the image to crop up in all sorts of media, given that it can be used for free, without attribution or permission, altered or unaltered, etc. Note that, even if it were copyrighted, there are still instances in which it can be legally used here under the Wikipedia:Fair use guidelines. MrZaius^talk 19:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that this picture is fairly grainy in the first place does it really need to be presented at such high resolution? The source file is over 21Mb which is a waste of load time and bandwidth. Can someone reduce it to a much more sensible size.86.138.15.15 (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The thumbnailed version displayed in the article is only 11.67Kb; click through that one and the larger version is 50.55Kb; readers only get the full 21Mb one if they click through where it says "full resolution", and that says right there what the size is. So, there's really nothing to do here. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Nature Comment, resource

Desertification: The next dust bowl by Joseph Romm in Nature (journal) 478, 450–451 (27 October 2011, published online 26 October 2011) doi:10.1038/478450a See also effects of global warming, Planetary boundaries, etc ... 99.35.15.107 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

If you can not access that one, try [this self-published link] just for background and the highlights. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

doi:10.1038/478450a

141.218.36.152 (talk) 20:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

potential resource

Dust Up; Biologist Jayne Belnap warns of the consequences for the American West if we don't preserve a home for the minute organisms that live in desert topsoil by Brendan Borrell Scientific American January 5, 2012 (page 80 to 83, January 2012 issue) Jayne Belnap is a Research Ecologist at the U.S. Geological Survey with a research focus of the biological crusts that hold in place desert dust and their ecological impact on human activities. Excerpt “We just need to start putting dust into the equation.”

97.87.29.188 (talk) 01:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=belnap-degradation-desert-topsoil-human-havoc-environment abd , Soil crust and dirt (soil), nitrogen fixation and carbon fixation, ...

99.190.80.182 (talk) 08:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding to "Impact on the arts"

Greetings! I would like to disscuss the expantion of the "influence on the arts" section of this article. The Folk-Rock band Mumford&Sons wrote a song tittled "Dustbowl Dance" which chronicles the plight of an orphaned farm boy durring the time of the American Dustbowl or "Dirty Thirties." The song tells of a boy who's father is either dead or left him and he is alone on his withering farm. The boy is kicked of his land by an opressor (possibly a greedy neighbor or banker) and seeks revenge. The song describes the confrontaion of the opressor as follows:

"Well you are my accuser, now look in my face Your opression reeks of your greed and disgrace So one man has and another has not How can you love what it is you have got When you took it all from the weak hands of the poor? Liars and thieves you know not what is in store There will come a time I will look in your eye You will pray to the God that you always denied The I'll go out back and I'll get my gun I'll say, "You haven't met me, I am the only son"

Evidently the confrontation starts out with the boy insulting the opressor by calling him a liar and thief and claiming that the possetions of the opressor have all been stolen by the poor. (It is possible that the boy is confronting a group of carpet baggers forcing him to sell his farm at fire-sale price, as was common durring the dustbowl.) The confrontation turns violent has he retrieves his gun and it is implied he kills the opressor. The boy is evidently caught by the law as implied by the lyrics "yes sir yes it was me...i went out and i got my gun..." This song is a wonderful example of how the Dustbowl both ruined lives and inspired art. I think it desserves a mention in the "influence on the arts" section. I am a new editor and have not edited any articles yet. this page is semiprotected, so i would like to know if any established editors would be up to the task of adding a paragraph, or even just a mention of the song, to the Dustbowl page. LiveSamaria (talk) 03:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The song doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia article of its own, and was released very recently. I think we should be very very selective about what we add to that section, otherwise it could get way out of hand. IMO anything added there should have had a lasting impact on the public's perception of the Dust Bowl, on the level of The Grapes of Wrath. Graham87 16:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Explaining or redirecting "Black Blizzards" "Black rollers"

It is my understanding that stating that the dust storms were called Black Blizzards is not descriptive/completely true. When you search black blizzards on google the first wikipedia page is for the Dust bowl. Black Blizzards occurred when soil blew off of farm land leaving the dry plains. It is too vague to say that dustbowls were called black blizzards because once the soil was gone, dust storms continued to occur that were not black but sand colored. Can someone please add at least two sentences in the first paragraph to clarify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.230.1 (talk) 23:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Revision of long-term impacts

Revised discussion of the long-term impacts based on incorrect/odd discussion of previously-cited research by Hornbeck Rhornbeck (talk) 06:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian wheat bit

Cut the following pending solid referencing as the in text mention of 1931 Economist articles may be dated. Need more modern analysis methinks.

One of the most important causes of the Dust Bowl was the arrival of cheap wheat from the Soviet Union in the autumn of 1930.

Pre-World War I Russia had produced and sold over 25% of the world's wheat. Post-World War I, Russian wheat exports all but vanished amid the turmoil of the revolutionary period. America, Argentina, Australia and Canada expanded their production to fill the gap and by the mid-1920s there was more wheat available worldwide than was required.

Then, in the autumn of 1930, Russia (in its new guise as the Soviet Union) deluged wheat onto unsuspecting, overprovided and frankly horrified world markets at slave-labour prices (The Economist, January 17, 1931 and April 11, 1931). Desperate US farmers efforts to get more income from their soil to feed their families merely compounded the problem and led to the dust bowl.

Feel free to return content to article with valid referencing. Vsmith (talk) 20:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Graham87 02:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Malformed reference

The reference #5(http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/dustbowl.htm) has expired. Error 404 is returned when the resource is accessed.

72.24.49.129 (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the broken link; thanks for pointing it out. Graham87 03:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Why were these added and why were they removed?

• Drought of 1934: The Federal Government's Assistance to Agriculture, report presented to the President's Drought Committee by Colonel Philip G. Murphy, Chairman of the Drought Co-ordinating Committee
• Areas of Intense Drought Distress, 1930-1936, Works Progress Administration Research Bulletin Series 5, Number 1
• People of the Drought States, Works Progress Administration Research Bulletin Series 5, Number 2
• Relief and Rehabilitation in the Drought Area, Works Progress Administration Research Bulletin Series 5, Number 3

99.119.130.123 (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't know why they were added, ask the user. The removal was explained - read the edit summary -- and you might want to read WP:LINKFARM and think about it. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

page protection

FYI I have requested semi protection against the IP vandals. Please add your opinion whatever it is NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

man made???

men do not make droughts. I'm changing that part until you can prove to me that the drought had nothing to do with it and that indeed the entire dust bowl period was caused by man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.76.38 (talk) 17:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The the dust was Man-caused, not the drought: The endless and damaging dust storms of the era were due to farming practices that didn't properly cover the soils with drought-resistant wheat (and also drought resistant grasses when fields were being kept fallow).

The natural drought-resistant grasses (of the Great Plains) had been stripped away by farmers of the era, who did not know how to use drought-resistant replacement crops and fallow grasses.

Now it would be very hard to get this dust, even in severe drought, because these regions now use drought-resistant crops and fallow-grasses. Even if everything turns brown, the drought-resistant plants hold the soil in place and keep it from blowing away into dust storms. 75.166.179.110 (talk) 17:08, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

"men do not make droughts." I beg to differ. Human behavior affects the climate. I'm sorry it does, but it does. Jaygrizz (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 November 2012

Please add a section about the origins of the term "dust bowl". I propose the following:

The term dust bowl was first used in print by Robert E. Geiger, an Associated Press reporter, who wrote a description of the "Black Sunday" dust storm of April 14, 1935.

Source: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=blacksunday

Findoc08 (talk) 03:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to add the "first use" bit & reference. However, not as an independent section, so where best to put it? Vsmith (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added it to the " Drought and dust storms" section, where the Black Sunday storm is mentioned. Graham87 03:26, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 December 2012

Please add the origin of the term 'dust bowl' as seen below.

According to The American Language by H. L. Mencken, the term 'dust bowl' was first 'coined by Edward Stanley, Kansas City news editor of the Associated Press, in rewriting a news story by Robert Geiger of the Denver office. (Personal letter from Mr. Stanley, now of the National Broadcasting Company, May 15, 1957).'

209.162.56.39 (talk) 21:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea, in general, but what is your reasoning for including the bit about the personal letter from 1959, seeing as the last supplement by the original author of The American Language was written in 1948? Graham87 05:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Done Mdann52 (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Lasting consequences

The "Lasting consequences" section deals with the human consequences. How about the lasting consequences for the land? It would be interesting to read what state that land was in in say 1950, and now. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I second this, I came to this article from the Texas article and I was spefically looking for information on this: is the land degraded in the 1930s still damaged? AadaamS (talk) 13:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I third this.... It really should be included! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.176.72.83 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Two choice here: Find reliable sources discussing the state of the land to day specifically relating that to the Dust Bowl and add it in or discuss how much we wish someone would for three more years. I'll check back in 2016 and see if anyone's done anything. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest better coverage of deaths due to dust pneumonia, in opening and through-out

Morbidity and mortality associated with the dust exposure in this period — from numerous cases of suffocation, to the silicosis and infection-related "dust pneumonia" fatalities esp. among the young and old, to the long term pulmonary health impacts (found radiologically, and in later impacts on livelihood and longevity) — were severe, and reasonably well documented; better inclusion of these would round out the human toll of this period, beyond the economic (human displacement, etc), and environmental that are very well covered. These immediate human MM impacts are only poorly covered in wikipedia at present, here and at the "dust pneumonia" article. I will help to improve the latter over time, but will not take time to fuss with the restrictions to this page. (If its editing reopens, I will offer suggestions.) Note, when traveling and time crunched I often will not sign, but am a regular editor. LeProf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.245.235 (talk) 05:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I could open this article for anonymous editing for a short time, if you like, so you can implement your changes. However I'd be very reluctan to unprotect this article for a significant length of time due to how much vandalism it receives from unregistered editors. However it would probably be easier if you logged in to your regular account. Graham87 14:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, scheduling is not possible for my wiki activities (as elapsed time perhaps makes clear). And logging, except in trusted wikipedia areas, is a nonstarter, given the unprofessional and unsupervised nature of the venue. [As a faculty member, have been stalked and had personal info researched and broadcast, including here. Apparently authority and confidence in themselves, alongside the notion that not all editing is created (factually) equal, makes one a target no matter how civilly expressed. Though I may trust you at this article, I do not extend that to all others, in general.] In any case, I hope you can use the earlier guidance to move the article in good directions. Will periodically look back for re-opening for editing. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.9.222 (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Climate Change could set the stage for a disaster similar to the Dust Bowl

• "Climate Change Threatens Long-Term Sustainability of Great Plains" Scientific American - Nov 27, 2012 - By Melissa Gaskill

Rising temperatures, persistent drought and depleted aquifers on the southern Great Plains could set the stage for a disaster similar to the Dust Bowl of the 1930s, scientists say

• "The next dust bowl" in Think Progress

Joseph Romm reprises & reprints his article in Nature on key scientific findings on drought effects of global warming potentially much more extreme, covering a much larger area, and much more long-lasting than the dust bow.

• "Without Carbon Controls, We Face a Dust Bowl" The New York Times - The Opinion Pages - Room for Debate - Updated July 25, 2012 By: Joseph Romm, a former acting assistant secretary of energy for energy efficiency and renewable energy, is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and the editor of the Climate Progress blog.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocdnctx (talk • contribs) 21:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

The first one might be RS; The 2nd one is an opinion piece and would have to pass muster as being the views of an expert, see WP:SELFPUB and the like; Ditto for the third one. The references those pieces themselves cite might be worth a gander. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lasting ecological damage

The article talks a lot about economic damage and hardship on humans, but there is not much mentioning of whether the top soil layers have recovered since the 30s or if the land was permanently turned into unfertile land. AadaamS (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you find WP:RSs then you can add that! Please do in fact! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:54, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The urls look promising.... but please "collect" them at your userspace instead of the article talk page, because we try to avoid WP:LINKFARM, and others might not believe you ever plan to do anything with them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I regret that I added links to this talk page, deleted the links again to avoid further suspicions of either linkfarming or laziness from you or others here. Have a good weekend. AadaamS (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I hope to see them return, in the main body, supporting article text! Thanks for understanding. Farming has been a problem on the climate pages in the not so distant past. If you read 'em and wanna discuss specific aspects of them here, post 'em again with some substantive discussion! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the linkfarm wars, that leads me to steer clear of all other US climate pages in the future as well as this one. AadaamS (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Climate

It would be great if someone could add some long term historical climate data to contextualise the dust bowl... graphs with long term precipitation and temperature patterns. The geographic section seems incomplete without long term climate data. Cheers. --Tallard (talk) 03:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

In researching the Dust Bowl, I have found 2 errors in this entry. Both relate to a single sentence and citation. This occurs in the Section 4 on Human displacement, Subsection 4.1 on the U.S.

The sentence in question reads: "By 1940, 2.5 million people had moved out of the Plains states; of those, 200,000 moved to California." These statistics are attributed to Donald Worster's book "Dust Bowl – The Southern Plains in the 1930s" in footnote 19.

The first hint that neither of these statements are correct or correctly attributed comes from the fact that the citation lists no page number (unlike the other citations to Worster in the wikipedia entry, e.g. footnotes 20 through 22). I have read Worster's book in its entirety and both of these statistics are incorrect.

The first error is more minor. Worster does not state that "By 1940, 2.5 million people had moved out of the Plains states." Instead, the correct statement is that "Almost a million plains people left their farms in the first half of the decade [referring to the 1930s], and 2.5 million left after 1935." This is quoted from Chapter 3, on page 49.

The second error is more important. Nowhere in Worster's book does he state that 200,000 people had moved to California. This incorrect statement seems to be coming from a poor interpretation of a statement from Chapter 3, page 50. There, in regards to migration to California, he writes: "Some 75,000, or one-fourth of all the poor migrants arriving in 1935 and after, came from Oklahoma." 75,000 is one-fourth of 200,000 so that must be where that number in the wikipedia entry is coming from.

However, in that statement, Worster is NOT saying that 200,000 people moved from the Plains states to California. He is saying that 200,000 poor migrants came to California WITHOUT reference to their place of origin. In that sentence, he states that 75,000 moved from Oklahoma, and in the sentences that follow, Worster lists a number of other states where there were substantial flow of migrants to California, for illustrative purposes. However, my reading is that Worster was not intending to compile an exhaustive list, or compute a total number of migrants, from the Dust Bowl to California. In that sense, the second part of the sentence in the wikipedia entry is simply incorrect and should be removed.

The sentence in question should be edited to: "Between 1930 and 1940, approximately 3.5 million people had moved out of the Plains states; of those, it is unknown how many moved to California." The citation should be to Worster, page 49. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.49.53.39 (talk) 05:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

206.87.119.167 (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the detailed request. I've performed your edit as you've asked. However, 75,000 multiplied by four is 300,000, not 200,000, which raised my suspicions further as to how that figure got into the article in the first place. Thanks to this search on WikiBlame (after going through the article's history from the latest revision until I hit the target),, I discovered that it had been added in this edit way back in October 2007. The person who added that text may well have been working from half-remembered facts, since they didn't cite a page number or even a chapter. Graham87 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Removing article edit protection

After watching Ken Burns 3 - part miniseries on the Dust Bowl, I was inspired to come to this page. I saw a few things that could be improved along with the list of things to for. I was greatly disappointed to find out I was unable to edit due to the protection lock.

Looking back in the talk archives, it appears there was a good deal of vandalism 18-24 months ago. From my quick skim of both talk pages, there have not been issues since. Wiki guidelines state:

"Articles experiencing high levels of vandalism or edit warring from unregistered and new users, and for some highly visible templates and modules..."

I fail to see how this article is controversial or likely to continue to attract heavy vandalism that cannot be solved by banning users. Moreover it's been 18 months, a period of time I think has been more than sufficient For vandalism to "cool off" .

Can 1) the protection be removed please? If not, 2) Help me understand why not- are unregistered users continuing to maliciously vandalise? Have you tried banning the users? Why was it not discussed on the talk page in the last 18 months?

Thank you. 2600:1008:B01A:AE1E:B4A9:A397:FC17:3B10 (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)F8andbethere

In 2014, counting only my own edits, I have reverted five instances of vandalism. Hopefully both your counting and spelling will improve in the future. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to get uppity. I'm posting from a smartphone- my sincere apologies for the spelling problems. As I said, I looked at the talk pages. No vandalism has been noted in the talk pages for 18 months. Yet the page is still protected. You count five, a number I cannot verify right now but will assume is accurate for the purpose of this conversation. That's once a month. This is not global warming or Adolph Hitler or Israel & Apartheid. It's the Dust Bowl. Hardly high levels of vandalism as specified by the standards i quoted. And I thought just perhaps I could contribute to it. I ask again can the page be unprotected?

2600:1008:B02C:3327:B0B7:50C1:72D1:D646 (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)F8andbethere

Propose an edit here, complete with RSs, and maybe someone with access will post it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 07:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2014

I believe this is a well written article but unfortunately does not mention the changes in airstream that occurred during this decade that diverted the normally moisture laden air from it's normal path by hundreds of kilometers. So the cause was twofold: incorrect farming technique and climatic change. Thank you 58.106.199.195 (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent dust bowls

It might be worth mentioning the recent dust bowl, ref. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

"Babb's own novel about the lives of the migrant workers, Whose Names Are Unknown (2004), was eclipsed and shelved in response to the success of Steinbeck's works"

I suggest removing the citation needed tag from the above sentence by adding the following source.

Hrc.utexas.edu, (2015). Whose Names Are Unknown: Sanora Babb. [online] Available at: http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/babb/career/ [Accessed 26 Jul. 2015].

Enzokarate (talk) 01:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Graham87 06:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the point of these two sentences at all? They're about a thing which is about a thing which is about the Dust Bowl. They belong in the section Influence on the arts and culture and Steinbeck is already mentioned there, albeit with less detail than these opening sentences. 76.14.230.138 (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Can't Editor

Good point. I've rewritten the parts about cultural influences in both the lead section and the heading about this subject. Graham87 11:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

Hey, please change (up in the beginning) where it says that the dust bowl was caused by a "severe drought," or mega-drought, because those are 20 years or longer. Please change it to simply "drought". Thanks! 123wolverine (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Please cite a source for that. By that definition, Australia has never had a "severe" drought, and I doubt you'd find many people here who would agree with that. Graham87 11:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Link between Dust Bowl and Great Depression

I suggest adding a little more information about how the Dust Bowl affected families in the region, and maybe give a link off to the great depression because those two go hand in hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dokeh1516 (talk • contribs) 14:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Article edits and additions

3/5/16: I added information about how Atlantic and Pacific sea surface temperatures are linked to the causal mechanism for the droughts. This is important because it explains some of the causes of the droughts. Link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z/fulltext.htmlMarykatherineloos (talk) 23:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

3/5/16: I added information about the greatly expanded participation of government in land management and soil conservation. This is important because it shows how the government was involved with policies in land management after the Dust Bowl on the Great Plains. Link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z/fulltext.htmlMarykatherineloos (talk) 03:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

3/5/16: I added information about the enduring impact of the American Dust Bowl: Short- and Long-Run Adjustments to Environmental Catastrophe. This is because there was not much information on this topic. Link: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hornbeck/files/hornbeck_dustbowl.pdf?m=1360041873Marykatherineloos (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

3/5/16: I added information about the "hay method" because it had not been previously discussed in the article. Link: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hornbeck/files/hornbeck_dustbowl.pdf?m=1360041873Marykatherineloos (talk) 05:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

4/11/16: There was no source for the following: "The Dust Bowl area lies principally west of the 100th meridian on the High Plains, characterized by plains which vary from rolling in the north to flat in the Llano Estacado. Elevation ranges from 2,500 feet (760 m) in the east to 6,000 feet (1,800 m) at the base of the Rocky Mountains." I added an appropriate source, and paraphrased the sentence. Link: http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151818/ Marykatherineloos (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

Hi Mary|, thanks for your efforts, but I've undone that particular edit because that page derives much of its content from Wikipedia, and adding it is a case of circular referencing. Graham87 05:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Map

This page has one that might be usable, based on the license: [4] -- Beland (talk) 21:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

A map, at long last

Wikipedia has been waiting for this map for ten years

I don't know the names of all the states. U.S. geography terms are a problem for me. When I read this article, the lack was obvious. Apparently, it was also obvious in 2007, in 2010 and in 2016. I found a US fed gov. source published in 2012, but the resolution was a problem. Three hours of staring at the screen later, here it is. Do I have real work to do? Absolutely. Will my boss kill me on Monday (tomorrow, for me, as an Asian)? Probably. But at least now, ten years after the thought popped into a Wikipedian's head, this article has a map! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Nice! It's always cool when a longstanding request is fulfilled like that ... I personally won't be able to make use of the map because I'm blind, but it's cool all the same. One small thing though: would it be possible to use another template to demonstrate the colour? I'm not sure if it's an issue with my screen reader, but I can hear the text "d88373" which is distracting. Can we use something like {{color}} with the text "maroon"? Graham87 14:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87: Hmm, I looked into this, the issue arises because I'm using the {{color sample}} template, which is apparently not screen reader friendly, but it is included on 336 articles, so I wonder if it wouldn't be better to fix the template. This template is in use by a lot with other articles here, included featured Duke University, X11 color names etc. I am not great at wikicode, but I think that it's because the template uses the "title" attribute to show the user the color code on hover. If you want, you can also provide to the template a "description" parameter, but that wouldn't help you much: it would just make it read "maroon maroon", and all those other articles would remain broken. There has to be some way to tell screen readers "hey, ignore this title attribute, it's meant for mouses to hover over, not part of the text" but I'm not sure what it is... :-( Let's see if a more experienced Wikipedian will weigh in. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: I've added a note about this discussion to the talk page of the accessibility guideline; let's see what comes of that. Graham87 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87: Cool, I put it on my watchlist If push comes to shove, I guess {{color}} could be used instead, but it really is quite ugly in this scenario and very weird in the context of a map key. I don't know if you've ever been sighted or not, but normally a map key will have a square showing the color (like {{color sample}}), and then what the square represents in normal text after that. Not every map is the same of course, but this lets you make light colored shapes on your map without you worrying that the shapes will blend into the background of the map key. I hope we can find a way to fix it because fixing it will help many more articles than this one. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Graham87 and Psiĥedelisto: The template may be correctable, but I know zip about templates. Why not just eliminate the template and say "the darkest color represents the counties most severely affected"? That statement would also be true for colorblind users. — Gorthian (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Couple of comments unrelated to colour. The key has a space in the word "sev ere" in multiple places. The box describing the source of the map belongs on the Commons description page, not on the map itself. SpinningSpark 19:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: Actually, the map key does not have any spaces between "sev" and "ere" ... the sans font that Wikipedia uses does some very weird things when rendered at different sizes. Compare these three images:

• [5] map key overflowing box
• [6] letters all squished together
• [7] "sev ere" "C ounties", etc.

Normally I do not rely on Wikipedia's font rendering because I know about this problem. But, in this particular case, since there is so much text in the image and there is a high likelihood other Wikipedias may want to use the image, I decided to use it so translation by foreign language Wikipedias would be easy. I'm a bit at a loss of what to do, if you know feel free to clue me in. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You can use the |description= parameter. Compare these two:

• {{Color sample|#d88373}} which yields  
• {{Color sample|#d88373|description=maroon}} which yields  

@Graham87: is the second example better for you? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Or you could try:

• {{Color sample|IndianRed}} which yields   — not an exact match for color, but very close.

— Gorthian (talk) 23:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I would have thought the solution would be to omit the word 'maroon' from the caption and to use |description=maroon (or 'dark red', or whatever). Does naming the colour in the prose of the caption perform any useful function once you have the colour sample template? I'll make a change to the article and see if any information is lost – Graham, does that now read ok to you? --RexxS (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

This (1) looks better and (2) solves the screen reader issue! Psiĥedelisto (talk) 04:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS! Yep, it works fine on my end. Graham87 08:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Article Critique

I chose to review this article as it was something that came up in class and I was unfamiliar with it. After reading this article I am now more familiar with the dust bowl. I found this article to be very well put together with good references and an unbiased viewpoint. It has a good amount of information without being overbearing or distracting to another topic. DakotaJackson (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected e

2601:8C:C005:35E0:5198:BD66:3770:50B7 (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — IVORK _Discuss 21:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dust Bowl. 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/20121024013411/http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/ to http://www.library.okstate.edu/okmaps/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

Although they are discussed together, it should be stated that, due to coinciding with the Great Depression, the Dust Bowl has become closely associated with the economic downturn. For example, the image of the young mother used here is just as frequently used to depict the depression in general, even though the Dust Bowl wasn't caused by the depression, nor did it cause it (though it made it worse in the US and Canada, of course). 96.51.188.175 (talk) 17:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dust Bowl. 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/20061014181201/http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/dustbowlpics.html to http://www.weru.ksu.edu/new_weru/multimedia/dustbowl/dustbowlpics.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924010757/http://www.modbee.com/outofthedust/ to http://www.modbee.com/outofthedust
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716071209/http://earlywarning.usgs.gov/adds/ to http://earlywarning.usgs.gov/adds/

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 01:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2018

The Spearman Reporter text and citation both have the misspelling "seige." This is a mistake in the original, so would you please add [sic] in both places? 208.95.51.38 (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done; it's already in the main text and we can't add it to the title because it's not actually part of the citation. Graham87 14:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean? I copy the text: "Because of this long seige of dust..." There's no [sic] in there. And [sic] can be added to titles. See Sic#Read. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 15:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, there was an instance of {{sic}} to let computer programs know that the misspelling was intentional, but it was set not to output "[sic]" in the actual article; I've gone and changed that. As for the newspaper article, the top of the template's documentation explains that it should not be used in citation templates because it makes them more difficult to read with computers using COinS. Graham87 06:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I realise why "sic" was hidden in the instance you cite now ... because "beseiged" was already marked as such. I've therefore undone my edit. Graham87 06:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Graham, why does the COinS problem matter? You could just put [sic] into the header. Be sure to use the code (which I used here) instead of the brackets, of course. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 13:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Because the "[sic]" is not part of the title. Graham87 14:08, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

It's never part of a title. It's not part of anything. If it's wrong to include it in the title, it's wrong to include it in quotations. 208.95.51.38 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Broke, baby sick, and car trouble! - Dorothea Langes photo of a Missouri family of five in the vicinity of Tracy, California.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 17 November 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-17. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s. Drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion caused the phenomenon. The drought came in three waves, 1934, 1936, and 1939–1940, but some regions of the high plains experienced drought conditions for as many as eight years.

This photograph, titled Broke, baby sick, and car trouble!, was taken by Dorothea Lange in 1937 and depicts a Missouri migrant family's jalopy stuck near Tracy, California.Photograph: Dorothea Lange. Restoration: Adam Cuerden.

Garbled section

Hello, this edit in September garbled the final section of prose with regards to template formatting. AnomieBOT's attempt to fix did not help matters. Perhaps undoing them would resolve the garbled formatting here. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by Shenme. Thanks for the note. Graham87 05:04, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Canada ?

So the first sentence mentions Canada, but the map is nowhere near Canada. According to the description, the "Dust Bowl" was mostly in Kansas and Oklahoma. On the map, it just touches Nebraska. You would need to cross the whole of Nebraska, and then cross South Dakota, and then after that you would need to cross North Dakota, before you get to Canada !Lathamibird (talk) 01:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lathamibird: As explained in the description of the map, it has limitations. For one thing, it doesn't cover all years of the Dust Bowl, it stops at 1938. For another, it was prepared by the US Government in 1954, meaning two things: one, it is US-centric; and two, it is not privy to modern historical research of the Dust Bowl. In the key of the map it can also be seen that a value judgment was also made as to what was "severe" and not "severe". The map only shows what the US government determined to be "severe wind erosion" in its territory in 1954; less severe wind erosion flew under the radar as it were. Canada, Nebraska and the Dakotas were affected, just not to the same degree that the Oklahoma Panhandle was. Hope this helps, feel free to ask any other question. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Causes of the Dust Bowl

The current article begins "The Dust Bowl was a period of severe dust storms that greatly damaged the ecology and agriculture of the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s. Drought and a failure to apply dryland farming methods to prevent wind erosion caused the phenomenon."

This is not accurate. The dust storms did not damage the ecology and agriculture of the prairies. The attempts at agriculture damaged the ecology of the prairies.

The dust storms were caused by over-farming prairie land which requires the natural flora to resist drought and hold the soil together. The overproduction was massive, as farmers tried to grow their way out of the effects of the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, in their attempts to develop this type of ecology into farmland, the farmers removed the natural prairie flora. During drought, the soil simply blew away and this created massive dust storms. In other words, this land is not meant for farming.

How Stuff Works explains it well. The Dust Bowl, by Ken Burns, does too. Alliwalk (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Also "Dust Bowl" refers to the region of the country that generated the dust storms. Alliwalk (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Great Plains Shelterbelt

The article about the Great Plains Shelterbelt should be linked somewhere (probably in Government Response) because it provides meaningful additional information. --Buckiboy (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It turns out that it already was linked; I've clarified the linkage. Graham87 03:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

formatting issue with final section

i'm not a registered user so i can't correct this but there's some kind of formatting issue with the final text section of the article, "Aggregate changes in agriculture and population on the Plains" the text in this section appears in boxes as if it is code or a quote 74.135.64.31 (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. This was because of {{Clarify span}}; I've changed it to use {{Confusing section}}. Graham87 04:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Update

Please update the topic. I am new to editing. I like to learn how to edit.https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11111-013-0190-z this is a link I think some part of which is already put in the article. I like to add the parts which talk about the causal mechanisms, such as variating Oceanic temperatures, which are /maybe related to Events such as El Nino and LA Nina, ENSO, Milankovitch Cycles, etc. I am not an expert on these topics, but am interested in these. I am Post Graduate in Geology. Would like to expand my knowledge. Thank yiu — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.chaitanyakumar4U (talk • contribs) 19:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your message; I've moved it to the right place. You might want to get more familiar with Wikipedia first before adding content; see the links I'll add to your talk page. Graham87 09:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Article missing references to key research from the past 15+ years.

Geoff Cunfer, Myron Gutmann, Ken Sylvester, Susan H Leonard and others have done decades of work on the Dust Bowl and I don't see any of it referenced (aside from one of Sylvester's articles and now a chapter from Cunfer that I added). I'll try and find some time to improve the article in the areas where I've read the scholarship, but I think this article needs some wider attention from people who've kept up with the debates and the new evidence compiled from the census that upends some of the older explanations. JSClifford 16:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article where Gutmann provides an overview of this scholarship: Gutmann, M. (2018). Beyond Social Science History: Population and Environment in the US Great Plains. Social Science History, 42(1), 1-27. doi:10.1017/ssh.2017.43 JSClifford 16:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cljim22 (talk • contribs)

Thanks very much for your comments. Yeah, this article hasn't had much content added to it for a long time. I don't know anything about this subject ... I only have this article on my watchlist because of some relatively long-standing vandalism I found in 2008 ... so all I can really help out with here is formatting, as I have done on your most recent edit. Graham87 10:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2021

"FDR in an address on the AAA commented,..." could someone define what is meant by the AAA? 67.85.15.197 (talk) 02:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, using the AAA disambiguation page, but the edit requests service is usually for cases where you have a concrete idea of the exact change you want to make. Graham87 02:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

No table of contents

The title sums it up. Most articles have a table of contents section where there are links to each part of the article, and this one doesn't. I personally have no idea how to make one, so I would like it if someone else did. Lavaslug (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought there wasn't one, there is.

It would be nice if it were higher up so this mistake isn't made by others, though. Lavaslug (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lavaslug: I've taken the liberty of putting back your first message so your second one makes sense. Re the TOC, its position in the wikitext can't be moved for screen reader users like me, but the TOC can be floated. Graham87 10:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I've gone and asked at the help desk. Graham87 15:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks fairly normal to me. This article does have a fairly long lead paragraph, which pushes the TOC down the page: you could try condensing it and moving some text into the body of the article?--Verbarson (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Verbarson: Thanks ... I think I'm way too close to the article text to do that though. All I feel comfortable doing myself is removing the first sentence of the third paragraph starting "While the term "the Dust Bowl" was originally a reference ..." (which has no source) and condensing the third and fourth paragraphs into one. That probably won't be enough to help, or would it? Lavaslug, could you tell us what kind of device you're viewing Wikipedia on and basic details (e.g. screen size, browser, etc)? Also, our Manual of Style says that lead sections should contain an absolute maximum of four paragraphs. Graham87 16:42, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

As an outsider to the article, it seems clear that the lede is far too long, and much of the detail discussed could be placed in the article itself, specifically the early history section, as it's pretty much a potted history. As such I've moved it, but I wouldn't cry if people disagreed and moved it back. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, that works for me. Graham87 17:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Link to a different article?

In the geographic section, the link "pioneer settlement" goes to a museum in Australia. I don't know if this was intentional or not. Gageills (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out; I've fixed it. Wow, the link was broken for over three-and-a-half years! Graham87 04:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Planned edits to "Aggregate changes in agriculture and population on the Plains” and “Human displacement”

Hello! I will be editing and adding info to the sections titled “Aggregate changes in agriculture and population on the Plains” and “Human displacement” by using the source Long, Jason, and Henry Siu. “Refugees from Dust and Shrinking Land: Tracking the Dust Bowl Migrants.” The Journal of Economic History, vol. 78, no. 4, 2018, pp. 1001–1033., doi:10.1017/S0022050718000591, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/refugees-from-dust-and-shrinking-land-tracking-the-dust-bowl-migrants/75E89BB833B4B266D01FA85DDB4A5A15. Jason Long is a professor of economics at Wheaton College and Henry Siu is a professor of economics at the University of British Columbia. The article itself is peer-reviewed and published by the Cambridge University Press. For the "Aggregate changes in agriculture and population on the Plains" section I plan on changing the heading to “Changes in agriculture and population on the plains,” so that I can add more information that is needed to understand the changes over time. For example, some of this information would be changes in the number of immigrants coming into the Great Plains States from other states and regions during the Great Depression. I also plan on editing the already existing content for clarity. For the "Human displacement" section I will add info about the migrants who moved out of the Great Plains during the Dust Bowl migration regarding changes in their jobs and financial situations in relation to those who did not leave the Great Plains. I will also add more information about internal state migration, since a lot of the focus is on migration to California on this page. Altogether I hope to add/edit about 200 words. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.Taylor0323 (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I don't know much about the subject so the only feedback I could possbily provide would be copyediting and reformatting. Graham87 04:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Marykatherineloos.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taylor0323.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022

Change the money conversion rate from 2020 to 2022 so that the 25 million dollars in 1936 is about 501 million in 2022 BESTAYSSS (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This page is using the inflation template to show this number, and it looks like the most current year that can be used with that template right now is 2020. aboideau^{talk to me!} 14:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Geographic characteristics and early history

There are contradicting references about the questions who coined the term dust bowl, when, and in which newspaper it was published:

• Edward Stanley, the Kansas City news editor of the Associated Press, in 1935: reference in the actual version of the article
• Robert Geiger in 1935: https://web.archive.org/web/20221012192039/http://www.shoppbs.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/dustbowl/peopleevents/pandeAMEX06.html, https://web.archive.org/web/20221012193738/https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2003/jan/25/veteran-ap-reporter-turns-100/, https://web.archive.org/web/20211102220402/https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/1000-mile-long-storm-showed-horror-life-dust-bowl-180962847/, https://web.archive.org/web/20121125235449/http://www.srh.noaa.gov/oun/?n=blacksunday
• 2 newspapers in 1934: https://web.archive.org/web/20221012195502/https://www.bacacountyhistory.com/dust-bowl-research-update-origins-of-the-termdust-bowl-maps-and-more/

--ThT (talk) 19:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Dust Bowl is a "period"?

How can the Dust Bowl be considered as a period? It is a region, where important dust storms occurred during the 1930s. 24.153.98.203 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

It's both a period and a region. The "Dust Bowl" refers to the time when there were massive dust storms. It can also refer to where these dust storms took place ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

First Use

"His story about Black Sunday marked the first appearance of the term Dust Bowl; it was coined by Edward Stanley, Kansas City news editor of the Associated Press, while rewriting Geiger's news story." There follows a quotation in which the term does not appear. -- This is confusing. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:D911:BDE0:A2FF:C03E (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Mistake

Unless I missed something, the reference supposedly referring to the USFS never states it as "United States Forestry Service". It always was the United States Forest Service. Please change. This is a mistake made either by the uneducated or non native speaker, furthering the idea that Wikipedia is written by fools. This is the text. You're welcome.

"...create shelterbelts to reduce soil erosion, groups such as the United States Forestry Service's Prairie States..." Klcuster (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As one of the fools who writes Wikipedia, I've fixed it for you. Given the number of times "forestry" appears and is used in reference to the USFS, it's not surprising that it appears in the article as a description - being common enough that "forestry" is a redirect to "forest".

I had some pithy comment ready about being uneducated, or a non-native speaker, but can't be bothered with it. If you want to contribute further, please be a little more polite as you go about it, thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:12, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. Per WikiBlame the error turns out to have been caused by this edit of mine, in response to additions by a student editor. As noted above "forest"/"forestry" is an easy mistake to make. As I've said before on this talk page, I know nothing about the subject of this article and it's only on my watchlist to protect against vandalism. I'll refrain from commenting further. Graham87 10:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The logic you used is flawed. My request is that the article contained accurate and reliable truth. Would you find such errors in Brittanica? No. People look to, even rely, on the information on Wikipedia. I'm sure it is cited by many Jr. and Sr. High School students. Accurate facts are needed, not approximations. If I offended you, I do apologize. It was not a personal attack, for I don't know you. Klcuster (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You can make personal attacks without knowing a person. Probably best you just don't insult the very people you are asking for help. There's no denying that accuracy is a requirement, but how you go about attaining that accuracy is also important when all here are volunteers. Incidentally, Encyclopædia Britannica does contain errors, many of which Wiki has attempted to correct: WP:EBE. Also, Wiki has always had a caveat when discussing reliability, as covered in Reliability of Wikipedia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to say that a 12-year-old once found errors in Encyclopædia Britannica. The fourth sentence in your first post was completely unnecessary and distracted from your main point. Graham87 13:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I am done with this. I was never asking for help, just merely requesting a correction to make the the article accurate. As for your assertion that a personal attack occurred, that is just so absurd that it doesn't merit response. However if you knew the difference between language meaning and nuance, you would not have even thought about posting that that you can make a personal attack on someone you don't know. For example, I don't agree with Senator John Smith's post. I post an opposing post, calling him out. Is this personal? No. A personal attack implies a personal relationship with the recipient of the attack. I don't know you, have no personal relationship with you, and really don't care. You are viewing my post through a prism that only focuses on yourself. I will gladly explain what this means in simple english if you want. 69.77.193.17 (talk) 06:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

We are viewing your posts through the prism of Wikipedia policy on personal attacks which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". If you were commenting on the substance of the hypothetical senator John Smith's posts, that would be debating his content; if, while doing so, you called him an uneducated fool, that would be an ad hominem attack. Graham87 07:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Gleissberg cycle

Should the Gleissberg cycle (which may have led to the Dust Bowl) be mentioned in this article? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)