Talk:List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes/Discussion

Possible F5/EF5/IF5/T10 Tornado Charts

Recently, TornadoLGS did some cleanup on the section, and it is very apparent from past discussions that some tornadoes need to be discussed about removal/addition to the list. The best course of action would be to have a discussion about the current list and probably dictate that a discussion take place for any future additions to the list, that way, controversy can be diminished now and in the future. Any editor that believes a tornado should be added to OR removed from the list can create a new section for that tornado, which will allow the community to discuss it. Every tornado already on the chart was automatically given a discussion section, so controversy can be taken off all entries, and three other tornadoes were added for discussion about keeping off the list or inclusion in the list. Some may seem redundant and uncontroversial tornadoes in the list, but having some discussion about every entry now and for the future will help "clean-up" the entire section and reduce confusion in the future.

Pings: ChessEric, United States Man, Joshoctober16, Colin777724, Cyclonebiskit, RandomIntrigue, LightningComplexFire, TornadoInformation12, Mmapgamerboy, Ionmars10, JimmyTheMarble, Awesomeness16807, Daniel boxs, Layah50, Cyclonetracker7586, Blundenq. A notice about these discussions will be posted on the WP Weather & this article's talk page. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:11, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I think most of these should stay. When I cleaned up the list back in 2020 and examined the entries, I removed the ones that did not have enough sources, though there are a couple where I have doubts. I have a copy of Significant Tornadoes by Grazulis and I checked the entries that site that source. Anything rated F5 or possibly F5 by him should stay. Admittedly, his other work cited on this page F5/F6 Tornadoes seems impossible to find. I will comment on a couple where I have doubts. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Anything by Grazulis in the Pre-1950 section shouldn't be controversial unless any official NOAA/NWS comments say otherwise on a specific tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I was actually referring to possible F5s in the 1950-1991 period for any tornado that Grazulis assess as F5 but is officially F4 or lower. We shouldn't take his word as gospel, but his expertise is certainly enough to add any tornado he assess as F5 as "possible." Pre-1950 is a given since most pre-1950 ratings in the U.S. are from Grazulis anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This is the reason why I believe that Grazulis assessing a tornado as an F5 or a possible F5 should mean that the tornado in question should be on the list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I do want to add, however, that near-F5 is not to be included on this list because that does not mean that F5 damage may have occurred. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed there. "Near-F5" still means F4. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

October 23 1666 UK

Relevant previous discussion: 1

• Rated T8/T9, which makes it a possible F5, so this should stay. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

February 22 1876 Australia (Bowen)

Stumbled across this while researching old Australian tornadoes. Was rated F5 in the BOM tornado database archive. Woodsy104 (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Well how about that. Australia actually had an F5. I’ll try to find some more information about the tornado so the text portion would have something other than “A tornado struck near Brisbane was was rated F5 by BoM”. Either way, this is a similar case to the 1970 Argentina F5 where it is an official F5 rating, so this is an automatic addition to the main F5/EF5 tornado list. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

...how the hell did you find this? XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Don't ask, I had a bit of spare time on my hands Woodsy104 (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So I guess that makes the Bucca f4 the second most violent tornado in Australia. Woodsy104 (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

July 22 1920 Canada

Unknown if ECCC previously rated this tornado, but in Grazulis’ F5/F6 tornado book, it is rated as an F5, so it should be added to either this chart or the chart of possible F5s without official ratings. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

July 20 1931 Poland

The following discussion 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.

---

• Should be an uncontroversial tornado for the list, with the ESSL European Severe Weather Database having the comments "According to the research article of Gumiński (1936) the wind that caused a damage in Lublin (Lublin Voivodeship) produced a dynamic pressure of 765 - 1314 kg/m2. In his calculations this value equaled to a wind speed between 110 and 145 m/s. If this estimate was correct, it would indicate an F5 intensity – the strongest tornado ever recorded in a Polish history..." Elijahandskip (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2022 (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.

June 17 1946 Canada

• The article does not list a source, but this article does have one. The person who indicated that F5 damage could have occurred is someone named Randy S. Mawson who was listed as a "Consultant and Expert Witness at Forensic Climatology Consulting Inc." It looks like this organization does have some credibility as they have looked into some severe weather events in the past, including the 2011 Goderich, Ontario tornado. This may be borderline, but I think its enough to keep it here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

May 18 1951 Texas

• Tornado researcher Thomas P. Grazulis was the one who said the tornado may have reached F5 intensity and his opinions are highly respected. The tornadoes prior to the official records beginning in 1950 are using ratings mostly from him. I think this is fine. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

March 21 1952 MS/TN

• This should not be included. Unlike most of the other possible F5 tornadoes, the F4 rating was a result of a downgrade and Grazulis assessed this tornado as having done F4 damage in his report. In my opinion, this means that the NWS believes that the tornado did not do any damage that would possibly necessitate an F5 rating. A similar example of this was the 2002 La Plata, Maryland tornado. The tornado was initially rated F5, but was downgraded to F4 upon a reassessment because the structures were poorly constructed. That tornado is not on this list for that reason, so the same should apply here. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with everything stated by ChessEric as to why this tornado should be removed from from the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• NOTE: There is an NCDC report that labeled this event as an F5 tornado, but this should be regarded as an out-of-date source. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

May 22 1952 Kansas

• I actually assisted in making an outbreak article that included this tornado. As I have said in previous discussions, Grazulis, who was the one who stated that the tornado may have reached F5 intensity, is a trusted tornado expert, so tornado should stay on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

June 8 1953 Ohio

• This was just one of several violent tornadoes on that day. Grazulis is a trusted expert in this field, so I think its safe to say that this tornado stays on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Agreed that it should stay on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

June 9 1953 Massachusetts

• Even with the official F4 rating, there are several tornado experts (including Grazulis) that believe that this tornado reached F5 intensity. This was actually somewhat surprising to me since this is not an area that typically sees such strong tornadoes and I wouldn't think the construction of the homes would not be adequately constructed to warrant such a rating. However, I can see the rating being necessary as the structures were actually pretty well-built and some of them were actually brand new. The complete obliteration of an entire neighborhood is one of the reasons why experts believe it was an F5 tornado. It makes me wonder if the F4 rating assigned here was purely based on the location of the tornado since such violent tornadoes are extremely rare in the Northeast. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  If I remember correctly, there were a few attempts to get this storm upgraded to F5 status, along with a few other tornadoes (I think there even suggestions of possible upgrades to estimates to some pre-1950 storms). All since fell through as they said the data was "too old" to try to make any changes. Add to the fact that since 2013 you only have untill around 30+ days to change a tornado's rating, and it looks unlikely this tornado will ever have its rating officially upgraded to a F5. That being said, it should DEFINITELY stay on the list. Halls4521 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

May 1 1954 TX/OK

• This tornado was part of a larger outbreak sequence. Grazulis stated that F5 damage may have occurred so it stays. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Keep per Dr. Grazulis's comments about F5 damage may have occurred. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Just a note for the record as well, Eric’s Weather Library, a self-published blog by a meteorologist also mentions this tornado was “underrated”. This doesn’t change anything since Grazulis also mentions F5 damage, so the tornado obviously stays on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

July 2 1955 North Dakota

• Same as above. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

May 21 1957 Missouri

• Same as above, although it is interesting to note that he said the homes in the part of possible F5 damage segment were of poor construction. Also interesting to note is that he said the Rush City, Minnesota F4 tornado caused near-F5 damage and he rated the Ruskin Heights tornado F4, although he did say that probable F5 damage occurred. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Grazulis rated the Ruskin Heights tornado F5 in a later publication. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

June 16 1957 Italy

The following discussion 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.

---

• I had to do some digging to find this one. It honestly looks like not even the ESSL knows what exactly the F5 rating to apply to as it came from just looking at photos and/or some sort of blog post. Nonetheless, they did say that F5 damage may have occurred, so I think its safe to say that it stays. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• This should stay on the list since the ESSL statement in the database says "It's not quiet clear if strong F4 of "lesser" F5. Pictures may show T10 damages; rated as F4 because this intensity has been reached; F5-rating may be speculations". Elijahandskip (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Gotcha. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:33, 17 September 2022 (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.

June 10 1958 Kansas

• Grazulis said the tornado may have done F5 damage, but there was not conclusive evidence for such a rating. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Nonetheless, it should stay. I forgot to say that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• Just a note for the record as well, Eric’s Weather Library, a self-published blog by a meteorologist also mentions this tornado was underrated. This doesn’t change anything since Grazulis also mentions possible F5 damage, so the tornado obviously stays on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

May 19 1960 Kansas

• Grazulis straight up rated this tornado F5, so it definitely should stay. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with what ChessEric says. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

May 30 1961 Nebraska

• This was yet another case of the NCDC totally screwing up as they list an F4 tornado and two F3 tornadoes along what literally appears to be same path, which means it should be just one tornado. Grazulis rated the tornado F5, so this tornado should stay. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

June 6 1963 South Dakota

• This is a very weird case; the official database rates the tornado F3, Grazulis rated the tornado F4, and Grazulis also states the tornado may have reached F5 intensity. Long story short, this tornado stays. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 12 1964 Kansas

• Grazulis said F5 damage may have occurred. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 11 1965 Indiana (Dunlap)

• While I do hesitate somewhat since the F5 rating came from older sources and the tornado was downgraded to F4, the expertise provided by both Grazulis and Fujita should keep this tornado as a possible F5. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 11 1965 Indiana (Lebanon & Sheridan)

*Grazulis made no mention of this tornado possibly reaching F5 intensity, but the source provided does. I think that's enough to keep this tornado on there. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• On second thought, the source provided is outdated in my opinion. This can be removed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:52, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 11 1965 Ohio

• This was rated F5 by two tornado experts, so it stays. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree, this stays on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

May 8 1965 Nebraska

• This was rated F5 by Grazulis and listed as an F5 tornado by the previously mentioned NCDC report. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 23 1968 Kentucky

• It is interesting to note that in this outbreak, the rating of the F5 tornado is disputed (some say it was an F4) while the rating of the F4 tornado is also disputed. (some say it was an F5) In any case, this tornado stays. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

January 1 1970 Australia

The following discussion 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.

---

Relevant previous discussions: 1 & 2

• I think this tornado should be removed from inclusion, because it remains officially unrated, and it appears a self-published blog ([1]) is the source in the Bulahdelah tornado article for the F5 rating. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've literally dug through possible sources for about 30 minutes and other than that blog sources and few pages that basically copy-paste the Wikipedia article, I can find NOTHING about any sort of rating. Now I won't discount this guy totally, but I really don't know if we can even keep the F5 designation in the article on this tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2022 (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.

April 27 1971 Kentucky

• The NCDC source is outdated and the F5 status is questionable anyways. It is probably best to remove this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I actually disagree with ChessEric. The NCDC source was updated as recent as August 2000, which is 29 years after the tornado. In it, they do mention it as “Questionable F5 status”. If the NCDC report has been right after the tornado, I would have agreed with ChessEric that it is outdated, but since this was published in 2000, I think we have to keep this tornado on the list since it is an official publication from NCDC, authored by three people (Neal Lott, Sam McCown, Tom Ross). Elijahandskip (talk) 19:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  I did a project on this tornado and saw all the photos from the path and none of it looked stronger than low than F4. Caleb Routt (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

In a newspaper article, it looks like slabbed homes, debarked trees, and widespread devastation was a common theme for its track. While the newspaper article doesn’t talk about a rating, I think it is enough to show that the NCDC report for this tornado wouldn’t be out of date. One of the pictures shows a 100% slabbed church, which a large concrete slab remaining. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

January 10 1973 Argentina

The following discussion 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.

---

• I swear to God, some of these foreign tornadoes just need ratings because I'm tired of digging for this stuff. We need more evidence because the source provided that says Grazulis rated this tornado F5 has no rating mentioned at all. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

ChessEric Wow. I actually just found a source confirming it was an F5 tornado. Publication in the National Academy of Sciences of Buenos Aires back in 2017. Written by two engineering faculty members of the University of Buenos Aires. I guess that closes this tornado's case. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy crap! Total bingo moment! This officially stays! XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:26, 4 September 2022 (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.

May 24 1973 Oklahoma

• Grazulis did not mention this as a possible F5 tornado, but there was EXTENSIVE analysis of this tornado at the time and the Monthly Weather Review does mentions that some of the farmsteads experienced F5 level damage. I find this interesting because you would think that these findings would warrant an F5 rating, but it got an F4 rating instead. Although the report is somewhat outdated and was made just a few years after the Fujita Scale became operational, the extensive analysis of the tornado justifies keeping this as a possible F5 tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:46, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

April 3 1974 Tennessee

• See the reasoning I put above. From the source I found from the previous tornado I discussed, it appears that two tornadoes were downgraded from F5 to F4. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

At least for right now, I think it should just be mentioned in the main article (1974 Super Outbreak) rather than this one. The report that got both this and the March 1952 tornado downgraded pointed out poor construction and poor/improper anchoring in the damaged buildings. Obviously, any report pointing to F5 damage for this tornado is now outdated.--Halls4521 (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

December 6 1983 Louisiana

Thanks to TornadoLGS for mentioning this on my talk page. This is not enough to add the tornado to the list, but NCEI said “In the Belle Pointe subdivision, several homes had foundations swept clean including bathroom fixtures. However, this was not classified as F5 because the walls were nailed to the foundation, not bolted.” Similar to other tornadoes that we decided wouldn’t make the list, so it does not make the list. Good to note though in case anyone in the future discovered something that points to F5 damage or F5 intensity. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that Grazulis said the same thing as well. This is not a possible F5 candidate like you said. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 05:19, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of Grazulis' entries from the 80s and early 90s seem to be just a rehash of the reports in Storm Data. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

June 9 1984 Soviet Union (Ivanovo Oblast)

• Looking up foreign tornadoes (and just other foreign weather events in general) is not my expertise. Further research is needed to justify this as a possible F5 tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

June 9 1984 Soviet Union (Kostroma Oblast)

• Same as above. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

July 31 1987 Canada

• I have some doubts about the inclusion here, mainly due to the current source not seeming particularly reliable: it seems to be a self-published blog. Better sources should be found in order to keep it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

June 15 1990 (Bakersfield Valley)

• [2] stated by nws it could of been EF5 if rated todayJoshoctober16 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Which tornado is this referring to? Tornadoes of 1990 does not have anything, let along a new F4 that was possibly EF5 as NWS stated for June 15, 1990? Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

This was an F4 tornado that passed north of McCook, Nebraska. It was very large (1.5 miles wide) and essentially obliterated everything in its path. However, this is just a random tweet in my opinion and the tornado is not worthy of being on this list. However, this is another example of why we need to work on expanding many of these main tornado pages, which is what I've been working on extensively. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion here. The tweets here refer to a tornado in Nebraska on June 15, 1990. The Bakersfield Valley tornado was in Texas on June 1 of the same year. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

That tornado ain't even on the main page! Seriously people! Help me so I don't have to do all this expanding by myself! Its annoying! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

April 26 1991 Oklahoma

• Verified as a possible F5 tornado based on measured wind speeds among other things. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• I have found this referred to as an F5 by experts such as Warren Faidley and Howard Bluestein. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

  Cool. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

November 29, 1992 Australia

I just stumbled across this one. Officially F4 (apparently Australia's only official F4), but is referred to as a possible F5 here. Normally I wouldn't consider it, except the author is apparently a retired forecaster for the Bureau of Meteorology. Although, in a couple of spots the writing does not exactly seem professional, which gives me pause. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:18, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I found the author/meteorologist on Linkedin and he is in fact a retired BoM meteorologist. I do agree it isn’t written like a full professional, but it also isn’t published to an academic journal. I think we should include it based on him being a former BoM meteorologist, that said, this is a weak support, but still a support nevertheless. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

While it isn’t written professionally, we have accepted less professional citations for tornadoes (like the TornadoTalk YT video for the 2016 Chapman tornado). I think we have to add the tornado to the list since the author is a retired BoM forecaster. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:56, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Mind you that Chapman also had the backing of the NWS, but this tornado can probably go on this list regardless due to the expertise that TLGS noted. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

June 8 1995 Texas (McLean)

A Project VORTEX academically published paper in Monthly Weather Review directly rated it an F5 and described the F5 damage. No doubt it should remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:57, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

June 8 1995 Texas (Allison)

An NCEI report in the Storm Event Database said “All sighting reports would place this as a F5 tornado, but due to little interaction with man made structures, the heavy rains and lapsed time to see the site, F4 was as high a rating as could be awarded. This can remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That's enough to keep this on the list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:10, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

April 16 1998 Tennessee

NWS noted it may have reached F5 intensity saying “Other notable tornadoes included three violent tornadoes in southern Middle Tennessee that reached F4 to F5 intensity…. This should remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting wording, but it seems good enough to me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

May 30 1998 South Dakota

In an academically published paper in Monthly Weather Review, Joshua Wurman discussed 264 mph winds measured by a DOW and at least one location of F5 damage. This should easily remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Enough said. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

May 11 1999 Texas

Meteorologist Bill Hecke said it was likely an F5 & saying “Only at such velocity are trees stripped of their bark and animals of their skin. This can remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:03, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

April 28 2002 Maryland

I don't think this should be added to the list, personally, but it should be listed in this discussion page for the sake of completeness. The La Plata tornado was initially rated F5, but was downgraded to a minimal F4 after apparent extreme damage was found to be due to poor construction rather than high intensity. The survey from Tim Marshall pretty much ruled out F5 intensity, and I am not aware of any reliable source claiming F5 since the original survey. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I said this about two other tornadoes above in Tennessee that were rated F5, but later downgraded to F4. I agree with you about it not going on this list. Unless the downgrade that was done noted that the tornado still may have reached F5 intensity, it doesn't go on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Basically, it was rated F4 at first, then upgraded by NWS Baltimore to F5 at a location. Tim Marshall downgraded that F5 rating to F4 based on non-F5 construction. Similar to the 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado, I think we should include the tornado solely based on a NWS survey team finding F5 damage. Similar situation except 2011 wasn’t officially rated EF5, but the survey team still found EF5 damage. This is a weak support, but a support for inclusion nevertheless. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't think I agree with this, and I'm from the area. Most of the homes given F5 from La Plata were downgraded to 3 and even 2 per Tim Marshall due to houses basically just sliding off their foundation.

Tuscaloosa was like a few QRT teams working with BMX getting outweighed by Tim Marshall because of various reasons, but the area still remained High end EF4 with winds of 190MPH. MariosWX (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@MariosWX: Hey! I'm from nearby that area too! XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think some of the apparent "F5" damage was even rated F1, which really argues against its inclusion. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that thing didnt do F5 damage. Caleb Routt (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

May 4, 2003 Franklin, Kansas

• Simon Brewer made a tweet which said “A well respected tornado damage expert (then & now) recommended the 2003 Franklin, KS damage path should be rated F5. His recommendation was ignored, & the damage path was given a "high-end F4" rating by the local NWS office personnel.” I do not think that is enough to add it to the list alone, but if someone finds anything else (non-tweet related) that mentions the possibility of F5, we should be ok to add it. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• I think this was discussed before, but all we had at the time was a personal blog. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Here are a few other self-published sources also mentioning the F5. Storm Track & Erics Weather Library. For the Bulahdelah tornado, we choose to ignore Eric’s Weather Library for being self-published & not saying names but rather just “experts”. I will note, Storm Track named Doug Cramer (Not sure if NWS or whatnot) said F5, but more notably, Eric’s Weather Library named Gino Izzi, a senior meteorologist with NWS Chicago, who said the damage should have been rated F5. We might have enough with Eric’s Weather Library to go over since the self-published source is made by a meteorologist, who is citing a NWS meteorologist. Thoughts ChessEric, TornadoLGS? Elijahandskip (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...that's interesting. It may be enough, but I'd like to get more opinions on this. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:12, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I don't think the site quite passes the RS bar: we would need a more authoritative source indicating that an NWS official said the tornado should have been rated F5. It might be worthwhile to try contacting Eric Brown to see if there is a published source where he found these statements. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

May 12, 2004 Harper, Kansas

The site Elijahandskip links to ([3]) also mentions this tornado as being given a conservative F4 rating and that one a member of the survey team, Chance Hays, "would later express regret over the conservative rating." If we can find a more direct (and hopefully more detailed) source for this statement, it might be added. As I say above, it may be worthwhile to ask Eric Brown about his sources, but I'm not too optimistic since the site has not been updated since 2015. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

July 18 2004 North Dakota

• apparently nws stated it did F5 damage but they didnt rate it F5 because of its slow speed , this is now behind a paywall sadly.Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Based on what Joshoctober16 said, this tornado should not be included to the list because there is no sources that could be used to verify it. Also, how is NWS behind a paywall? Everything published by them is public domain, so are you actually getting this information from NWS or it is a news article that has a paywall? Elijahandskip (talk) 14:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I think they mean that the rating can not be adjusted because the tornado was rated on the Fujita Scale. When the rating system was changed from the F-scale to the EF-scale in February 2007, it was decided that tornadoes rated on the Fujita scale could no longer be recategorized because it would be based on the current system, not the old one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• NWS sources would not be paywalled. You're probably looking at a third party source. In any case, if you have relevant information like this please give a link if you can. If it is paywalled, someone else might here have a subscription or some other way around it. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHfDyRz7Axk

  https://www.tornadotalk.com/marion-nd-f4-tornado-july-18-2004/ (National Weather Service in Grand Forks, Greg Gust.) i herd that the proof is found in the youtube link? Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...even if it is said by him, that would be stretch. I don't have time to listen to the video right now, so someone else should look into it. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Just listened to that part of the YouTube video. Here is the quote from NWS meteorologist Greg Gust: I've had one tornado that was back in 2004 which if I would have had the EF toolkit at that time I probably would have rated 5; EF-5, and I kept it at the very top ended of the F4 scale. But there are some things that you learn through the process and with the EF scale in a few more; a lot more engineering based information in there. I'd have felt more comfortable going with the F5 rating on that. I think that is solid enough to add it to the list, since the NWS surveyer/rater would have gone with EF5 and feels like it was F5. Thoughts ChessEric, TornadoLGS? Elijahandskip (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think that the quote is satisfactory enough, but I just want to make sure its for this tornado since the quote doesn't say which tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:32, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Got confirmation from an administrator with TornadoTalk that it was a reference to that tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Okay. That's good then. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

May 22 2010 South Dakota

Currently, I am not aware of a published reliable source for adding this tornado, but it should be on the radar for editors in case one pops up. In 2012, I attended a talk by Tim Samaras in which he stated that the Bowdle tornado probably should have been rated EF5, but it was knocked down to EF4. He indicated "political" reasons, something do with federal relief. In any case, since the talk is not published anywhere that I am aware of, we cannot added it without some other source. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the heads up. As you said, it needs a source. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:43, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

August 7 2010 North Dakota

Was rated EF4 officially with Maximilian Hagen from Extremeplanet (a blog) saying “The Wilkins county tornado in August 2010 was only 30 yards wide yet was probably capable of causing EF5 damage.”. [4] We should not include this tornado in the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Blog source = no go. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

April 27 2011 Alabama (Tuscaloosa)

It might be worth being more specific about which tornado we are referring to. I figure this is referring to the Tuscaloosa tornado, but there were other EF4 tornadoes on 4/27/2011 that one could argue for. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Yeah, this is for the Tuscaloosa tornado, which was already on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:40, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• This should stay on the list since a survey team did find EF5 damage. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  Indeed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

April 27 2011 Georgia

• well built frame house completely swept clean , not looked at by nws , stated to have much worse tree debarkation then a few of the EF5 on the same day.Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Even if that is the case, it needs to be documented by a reliable source. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

    If this is referring to the Flat Rock AL-Trenton GA EF4, but if it is, that tornado could have been an EF5 according to engineer Chris Darden who surveyed the damage that day, in an interview with Tornado Talk. Not sure if they're considered a reliable source though. https://www.tornadotalk.com/flat-rock-al-trenton-ga-ef4-tornado-april-27-2011-free/ 67.69.165.178 (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

May 24 2011 Oklahoma (Chickasha/Newcastle)

Relevant previous discussions: 1

• This should remain on this list as a possible EF5 tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• See comment below in the Goldsby section. Rated EF5 by people from Bulgaria and Japan, so this should for sure remain on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

May 24 2011 Oklahoma (Bradley/Goldsby)

Relevant previous discussions: 1

im unsure if this counts as a source? if so list this tornado along with Vilonia , Tuscaloosa , Chickasha and el reno 2013 https://books.google.ca/books?id=bUuzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=Washington-Goldsby+Tornado+ef5&source=bl&ots=SbObDctm9-&sig=ACfU3U0Xv858WQm5kMiwL4vW9khPG6KSdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXkIvFy7_nAhVJmVkKHTT_Dcw4ChDoATAEegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=Washington-Goldsby%20Tornado%20ef5&f=false Joshoctober16 (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unable to see the book, but I'm pretty sure that there are reliable sources that say this tornado was possibly an EF5. I'm surprised its not on the list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:26, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Through my college, I got access to the book linked by Joshoctober16. I can confirm on page 114, the book lists the following tornadoes as F5/EF5 tornadoes (directly quoting):

1. May 4, 2007, Greensburg, Kansas
2. May 25, 2008, Parkersburg—New Hartford, Iowa
3. April 27, 2011, Philadelphia—Preston, Mississippi
4. April 27, 2011, Smithville, Mississippi
5. April 27, 2011, Hackleburg—Phil Campbell, Alabama
6. April 27, 2011, Tuscaloosa—Birmingham, Alabama
7. April 27, 2011, Rainsville—Sylvania, Alabama
8. May 22, 2011, Joplin, Missouri
9. May 24, 2011, El Reno—Piedmont, Oklahoma
10. May 24, 2011, Chickasha—Blanchard—New Castle, Oklahoma
11. May 24, 2011, Washington—Goldsby, Oklahoma
12. May 20, 2013, Moore, Oklahoma
13. May 31, 2013, El Reno, Oklahoma
14. April 27, 2014, Vilonia, Arkansas

Page 114 does include a map with all of those tornadoes as well. This isn’t an !vote, just noting exactly what the book (by Yuko Murayama (Tsuda University in Tokyo, Japan), Dimiter Velev (University of National and World Economics in Sofia, Bulgaria), & Plamena Zlateva (Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in Sofia, Bulgaria)) is referencing since the book is not publically available and can only be accessed through college libraries or purchasing it. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

9 EF5 tornadoes in 2011!? O_o That would be WILD! XD In any case, I'm pretty sure all those tornadoes are on their respective list and it should stay that way. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up ChessEric, this tornado isn’t on the list. TornadoInformation12 recently started a discussion on the main talk page (Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes#Lets be careful about what we are allowing) with why this tornado wasn’t on the list. Based on your statement, I’m guessing you think this tornado should be on the list? Lol. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like were forgetting the new wren ef3 which wasnt survyed that well, that legit should be one of the only agreeable tornadoes that was capable of ef5 damage 2600:1700:5510:61D0:F416:E9AE:5D96:DC4F (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like were forgetting the new wren ef3 which wasnt survyed that well, that legit should be one of the only agreeable tornadoes that was capable of ef5 damage Colin777724 (talk) 20:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• For discussion purposes, I am pinging TornadoInformation12 who mentioned a video by NWS (don’t have access to it), where TornadoInformation12 said, “…that video ABSOLUTELY 100% contains audio of Kiel Ortega talking about a disagreement he had with another NWS team member about the rating, and mentioning how "some people believe it should have been rated EF5" regarding Goldsby specifically. It doesn't get any more direct and explicit than that. (In the talk page discussion linked above). I’m going to go ahead and re-add the Goldsby tornado with information mentioned by TI12 above and the book mentioned above, but I hope TornadoInformation12 or someone else with access to the video can sort of improve the writing I do. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh. Thanks. I was pretty sure that there was some mention of this tornado possibly being an EF5, so I'm surprised that it got removed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

March 2 2012 IN/KY

The following discussion 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.

---

• major pavement scouring , along with home concrete slab of a house being cracked/broken sadly this is even above the dod allowed for frame houses so unsure what it would need to do this.Joshoctober16 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• I do not think this tornado should be added to the list. I did some Google searches, and I haven’t found a single source saying it should have been an EF5. Unless someone can locate a source from NOAA, Grazulis, or some academic paper saying the tornado should have been an EF5, this should not be added. Elijahandskip (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

  There's actually mention of possible EF5 by the NWS at 11:17 of this clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEmwAIu40Fg Caleb Routt (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

ChessEric & Joshoctober16, sure enough NWS does say a possible EF5 spot. Here is the quote from the video by NWS Louisville: Well that one spot that had the possible EF5 damage the guy had a he had a pickup truck and and he had a backhoe in his garage, and the pickup truck…he never did find it. Guess that is enough to add it to the list of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes. Consider my vote changed to add to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I feel like saying that this is a total derp moment. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yep. No wonder google searchers didn’t find anything saying “EF5” for the tornado. It was NWS doing a YT video. I really need to check NWS YouTube channels more for information. Lol. Either way, I’ll add the tornado a little later tonight since that video is the evidence we needed for inclusion. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Just noting that I have added the tornado to the list of possible F5/EF5s. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:21, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Cool. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:40, 13 November 2022 (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.

May 19 2013 OK (Shawnee)

• Rick Smith, the Warning Coordination Meteorologist at NWS Norman, talked on twitter to Mike Morgan with KFOR-TV, in which he stated the Shawnee tornado might have been rated higher, had it “hit more EF4/5 worthy structures”. In case the tweets get deleted, here is the web archive link ([5]) Per all of our other consensus things, if an NWS employee states it could have been rated higher, we add it. Similar situation to 2016 Chapman, except this was over twitter rather than an YouTube video interview. Thoughts TornadoLGS, ChessEric? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  How the heck do you keep finding these things? XD

  I'm a bit busy right now, so I'm not going to give an immediate answer, but this is definitely something to consider. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can't see the tweet Smith is replying to, which would give more context. Even taking him as sufficiently expert, I'm not sure how much weight to put on casual speculation on social media. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Here are the original tweets Mike Morgan "I’m not going to argue this statement, however, ponderances are worthy for Lincoln County 5.19.13 and Shawnee 5.19.13" & Rick Smith "Agree - had either of those hit more EF4/5 worthy structures, ratings would likely have been higher." Elijahandskip (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, but there was another tweet, before Mike Morgan's, that was deleted. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems iffy, but given the word “possible”, I’m honestly ok if it’s construed broadly. 108.58.9.194 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I highly disagree with adding tornadoes to this list based of off cherry-picked speculative tweets and not scientific documentation. This whole "possible" list is a complete sham anyway. Any tornado could possibly produce EF5 damage if it hits the correct structure at the correct time. This page is honestly becoming a laughing stock and disgrace to the project. United States Man (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

...okay. lol. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@United States Man: How do you propose to fix it then? The guidelines for the list are set out in plain words. Not sure how you think it is a sham. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think he means that the whole "possible" section is not needed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

That's exactly what I mean, although I may be alone in thinking that. I've just always thought that section was highly unnecessary. Saying something could possibly be rated higher is a case applied to most tornadoes, whether it is published online or not. United States Man (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

May 28 2013 Kansas (Bennington)

The following discussion 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.

---

• The final report is somewhat confusing, but all in all, it does say that this tornado was probably violent at some point and acknowledges that EF5 winds were measured. This can stay. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on the EF5 winds being measured, this tornado should be added to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2022 (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.

May 31 2013 Oklahoma

The following discussion 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.

---

2013 El Reno tornado - I don't think there is any controversy about keeping this tornado on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Enough said. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There was no EF5 damage or anything close to it from from this tornado. Needs to be deleted Caleb Routt (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Even thought there was no EF5 damage, it was certainly strong enough to cause EF5 damage, only failing to do so because of a lack of suitable damage indicators. This much is documented by reliable sources, which is why it's listed on the article as a possible EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Went ahead and deleted that entry, no evidence of EF5 damage. The EF-Scale is based on 3 second wind gusts. That sub-vortex didnt last long enough to produce EF5 damage to any structure or vegetation. Not a possible EF5 Caleb Routt (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted that deletion. If you read the top of that section, windspeeds in the 200+ mph range can add tornadoes to that list. So please do not delete this from the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That goes against EF-Scale guidelines. It's been deleted. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That is now what the section is for. Please just stop trying to delete it. We have a three editor consensus to keep it and I am fairly sure you are the only person who has participated in any discussions who is saying the 2013 El Reno tornado was not a potential F5/EF5/IF5 tornado. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There was no evidence of EF5 damage, Tim Marshall and multiple others have said it was not an EF5. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

This is what the section is for:

Because the distinctions between F4/EF4/T9 and F5/EF5/T10 tornadoes are often ambiguous, the official ratings of numerous other tornadoes formally rated below F5/EF5/T10 or equivalent have been disputed, with certain government sources or independent studies contradicting the official record. This list includes tornadoes rated F5/EF5/IF5/T10 by government meteorologists, non-government employeed tornado experts (i.e. Thomas P. Grazulis or Ted Fujita) or meteorological research institutions (i.e. European Severe Storms Laboratory) that rated a tornado differently than the official government organization in charge of the rating. Published academic papers or presentations at academically held meteorological conferences that rate tornadoes as F5/EF5/IF5/T10 or present some evidence to support damage or winds in that category are also ways a tornado can be added to this list. This list can also include tornadoes previously officially rated as an F5 or EF5, but have since been downgraded officially to a lower rating.

If you notice, I bolded a specific statement about windspeeds. The 2013 El Reno has near 300 mph winds measured, therefore, it qualified for the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If it was downgraded then there was clearly no evidence for EF5. EF-Scale is a damage scale not a wind scale. This isnt sufficient evidence. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There was academically published evidence of EF5 windspeeds (~296 mph). If you read the giant text block above there is an “or” statement. evidence to support damage or winds in that category. Therefore, because there were EF5 equivalent windspeeds, it can be on the list. If there was evidence for EF5 damage, then it most likely would have been rated EF5. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

There was also a paper saying it did not have evidence of EF5 damage. You are breaking your own rules please stop picking evidence that only suits your narrative. Classic example of moving the goal post.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319119798_Ground-Based_Damage_Survey_and_Radar_Analysis_of_the_El_Reno_OK_Tornado Caleb Routt (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We are well aware that the EF scale is a damage scale. The idea here is that the tornadoes listed here on the basis of wind speed were capable of causing EF5 damage, and only failed to do so because of a lack of sufficient damage indicators. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You cannot prove that tornado would have caused EF5 damage because that sub vortex would have moved over an object too quick to produce EF5 damage. Tim Marshall said there was no scouring that was seen with many other tornadoes with EF5 wind speeds therefore it's unlikely based on this to cause EF5 damage. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

All we need is reliable sources directly stating that it did, or might have reached EF5 intensity. It is only listed here as a possible EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You are not being a productive part of this conversation as you obviously have no idea about the point of this section. I suggest you go back and READ about what this section is about. Otherwise, don't come back. We don't need people outside this project talking nonsense.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@ChessEric: You're talking to Caleb and not me, right? That needs to be clear. Through there is no rule against non-project members commenting or editing. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: I'm talking about Caleb. I have no problem with him joining the conversation. My problem is with his actions; you can't just say, "I don't like this! You're all wrong!" and change content when the people in the project agree to have something in there. As much as he annoys me with sometimes, US Man is right when he says you have to get consensus first before you do something major to an article. This moron didn't do that and that's why I'm asking him to leave. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@ChessEric: I'll caution you against personal attacks here. We have a newbie here who isn't familiar with policies and guidelines like WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:CONSENSUS. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: That's not my problem. Besides, he's talking like he has the final say so with this stuff as if what we say doesn't mean anything. If he's a newbie, he should be willing to listen to the other side of the argument and not act like a little kid. What I said above is FAR from what I WANT to say. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 23:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• Caleb Routt: National Weather Service source saying “at least 295 mph winds” and the word “instantaneous” does NOT appear anywhere. Please stop saying this tornado “breaks our rules” for the list (as you said in the wrong section about the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado). This tornado will not be removed from the list at all per the consensus that has been established here. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
• Noting that I have requested an admin or third party individual close this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2022 (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.

November 17 2013 Illinois (East Peoria–Washington)

Maximilian Hagen from Extremeplanet (a blog) said it might have reached EF5 intensity. This tornado should not be added to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't put much stake in that, especially since it's early speculation in the comment section rather than one of Hagan's articles. Though I've personally had my suspicions about this tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Nah. This isn't enough. I also added the link so we can get to it easier. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

April 27 2014 Arkansas

The following discussion 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.

---

• Since Tim Marshall himself mentioned that this tornado may have reached EF5 intensity, and likely would have been rated F5 on the old scale, I figure this one is uncontroversial. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:22, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree as well. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree that this should stay. Elijahandskip (talk) 11:18, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  again, no EF5 damage. Lots of tornadoes likely have EF5 recorded winds but don’t do the damage such as El Reno. I don’t think you read carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Routt (talk • contribs)

As stated in the reasons tornadoes can be added to the section, Tim Marshall, said possibly EF5 intensity, so it stays on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't know where you came from, but your argument is moot. We have the consensus to keep it here, so what your saying doesn't matter. Plus, your not making sense.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Vilonia is probably the most egregious example of an EF5 rating that was missed. If there's one single tornado that deserves to be on this list, it's this one.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

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.

April 9 2015 Illinois

Relevant previous discussion: 1

• The fact that this tornado was not rated EF5 is absolutely astonishing to me. Nevertheless, I see nothing about a possible upgrade at the moment so it should not be on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree. I haven’t found any sources or papers to indicate it should have been rated an EF5, so it cannot be on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• !Vote switched to neutral/weak support over the source located below. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the damage photos, my only guess is that an EF5 rating was not applied because even though the well-constructed houses were obliterated with debris from them being wind-rowed, the vehicles were not thrown long distances and/or mangled beyond recognition. However the core of this tornado was pretty small and it seemed to reach its max intensity in spurts rather than long durations of time. In other words, I still believe it was an EF5 tornado. However, like I said in the previous comment, I found no evidence of anyone disputing the very high-end EF4 rating, so it doesn't go on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 19:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Maybe someone could submit an inquiry.104.246.113.199 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for discussion purposes that in this news article, Chief Meteorologist Tom Skilling at WGN-TV called the tornado an “EF4+”. Further in the news article, he said, “The last time the immediate Chicagoland area has seen an EF4+ tornado was on Aug. 28, 1990, when an F5 tornado hit the town of Plainfield”. The fact a meteorologist (notable enough for a Wikipedia article) said that is making me think we might have enough to note him as the one rating it EF5. Situation is similar (not exact though) to the inclusion of the May 11, 1999 Texas tornado (scroll up for that section) where the source is a news article of a meteorologist (NWS) saying it was F5. In this case, we have a notable chief meteorologist, who, from a quick read of his Wikipedia article, actually gives the impression as an Illinois tornado expert, saying it was “EF4+”. I’m neutral at the moment until further opinions are added about this, but I’m leaning more toward addition. Thoughts ChessEric & TornadoLGS? Elijahandskip (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  To me it doesn't seem like enough. I don't think one single symbol should be enough, plus EF4+ could be to "include EF4 and EF5". This seems like an extrapolation. --170.24.150.113 (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I still say no. No offense to the guy, but he's a news meteorologist and what he says about damage doesn't mean much to me unless he bases it off what the NWS says. Additionally, he said EF4+, which to me means at least EF4, but not necessarily EF5 strength. I don't believe this quote is enough for me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

  I think by EF4+ he just meant violent (EF4/EF5) tornadoes in general, not that the Rochelle tornado was more than an EF4. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, on second look at it, I agree that the “EF4+” comment was for EF4/EF5, not saying it was EF5. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

December 23 2015 MS/TN

• concrete slab of a home was broken appart by this tornado , along with major pavement scouring , cars completely deformed and thrown farJoshoctober16 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Joshoctober16: You've mentioned possibly relevant evidence for a couple tornadoes. Could you provide a source(s)? Also, our own assessments of apparent extreme damage don't count here for inclusion, as that violates WP:NOR. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I highly doubt that this tornado was a possible EF5 tornado since it was rated low-end EF4 after an extensive survey. It took a few days for them to even up the rating from high-end EF3 to low-end EF4. This is not going to make the cut. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  oh im not expecting this to be added , at least not yet , its more of notes for the future , i did herd today that it was likely a EF5 by (tornadotalk) who are starting to get more into the borderline good source since some are meteorologist and have work with nws with some survey. Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Interesting, but not enough to add it unfortunately. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

May 9 2016 Oklahoma

• You had the wrong tornado at first, but I fixed it, so don't worry. The EF3 tornado had winds that reached EF5 intensity based on DOW readings so it can stay on the possible EF5 list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

May 24 2016 Kansas (Dodge City EF2)

• Which tornado are you talking about? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:55, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This section is for the tornado already on the list, which is the Dodge City EF2 tornado. Just fixed the title to show that. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I thought so. The final report said that tornado may have briefly reached EF5 strength so it can stay on this list despite only being rated EF2. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:17, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

its to note that WHAT tornado it is is disputed , some list some tornadoes as 2 to 4 separate tornadoes while some list as one , 2 EF2 in that day passed over the DOW EF5 wind speed measurement , making it hard to know what one. Joshoctober16 (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Based on the final reports, only one tornado was deemed capable of EF5 damage. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

May 25 2016 Kansas

The following discussion 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.

---

• This should stay on the list since there is a quote from an NWS employee saying "Had this hit a city like Abilene where there is more structures to hit, this could have very well been an EF5...". Elijahandskip (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 July 2022 (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.

June 23, 2016 China

• Some past discussions, specifically one back in 2022 with TornadoInformation12 helped make a few specific twitter accounts a reliable source for Chinese tornadoes, especially since CMA isn't exactly a very publicly accessible/open organization. Earlier this year, Eric Wang posted a twitter thread about the Jiangsu tornado. In one of the tweets about the tornado, he stated "The tornado quickly narrow its outer circulation and accelerated in speed when it was approaching Danping village, which was thought to have found EF5 damage and had the highest fatalities of all villages, Damage right here could be described as war zone." His tweets have been used as sources in other articles on Wikipedia & the entire tweet thread is extremely well done, almost like a short self-published academic paper (if you would consider a long 12-tweet thread like that). I'm currently thinking there might be enough to add it to the list, especially since there are pictures from Weibo, which is how CMA communicates with the Chinese public. Thoughts TornadoLGS & ChessEric? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...I'll have to think about that. I'll get back to you later. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's a personal Twitter account. I think a better question is why it's used as a source in other articles to begin with. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  @TornadoLGS: Mostly because CMA doesn't post anything. For example, on every Chinese tornado section in Tornadoes of 2022, his tweets are used and for the June 12 Chinese tornado, his tweets are currently the only source. Months ago, I challenged only using Eric Wang's and CyanideCN_'s twitter accounts for sources, but TornadoInformation12 defending them saying, "So there is a group of Chinese meteorological enthusiasts who I have been in contact with, and I can confirm personally that their connections to Chinese meteorological officials is legitimate." I trust TornadoInformation12, so both of those twitter accounts are considered a reliable source (in my opinion) for Chinese tornadoes. Unlike the US or Europe, information ain't that publicly accessible from CMA (for somewhat obvious reasons), but TornadoInformation12 almost made it sound like those accounts are like an English social media accounts for CMA. I'm hoping TI12 chimes in on this discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  While his Twitter account provides plenty of interesting information, at the end of the day, he is just a weather enthusiast and thus not a reliable source for information here. Any connections he has do not remedy that. I know plenty of NHC, SPC, and WPC meteorologists, but that does not mean my Twitter account can be sourced here. This tornado should not be added, and any information in other articles citing his account should be removed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I asked TornadoInformation12 if they would like to respond here, and they want nothing to do with this article whatsoever. All we have to go off of is their previous discussion about these twitter accounts. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

  I’d say no, and would say we should attempt to avoid using Twitter altogether, especially since they have a good chance of collapse soon. 98.116.45.220 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  "Chance of collapse" isn't really a good reason, especially since NWS tweets still and probably a thousnad of articles cite their tweets. Either way, my concern would be deprecating/classifying Eric Wang (and CyanideCN_) as unreliable, since as I stated, a lot of Chinese tornado sections are cited with their tweets. CMA doesn't message anything. That's the problem. Classifying them unreliable would leave a lot of Chinese tornadoes with a "Citation needed" template or fully deleted, which will actually hurt accuracy of articles. That's the whole issue, plus TornadoInformation12 does not want to participate in this discussion (and has stated they don't like participating in discussions often on Wikipedia), so I'm at a loss at what to do. I trust TI12 and we have at least one previous discussion about these twitter accounts, where it seemed to have been classified as a reliable source only for Chinese tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I agree that talking about twitter "collapsing" is purely speculative, but I reread your statement and I'm not sure if it means that they work for the CMA of of they're just "armchair experts" who have been in contact with it. Is the finding of possible EF5 damage their interpretation, or from the CMA? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not entirely sure. TI12 doesn't want to clarify it any further, so all we have is Talk:Tornadoes of 2022/Archive 2#Most Chinese tornado surveys on Twitter are not "amateur" to go off of. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  If there's a lack of information coming from the CMA on tornadoes, then we just have to work with the reliable sources we have. If there aren't any, then that sucks, but it is what it is and there's nothing we can do. If there's info in article that exists solely linked to his account, it shouldn't just be left unsourced, it should be removed completely. Weather enthusiasts who happen to know people are not a substitute for reliable sources. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  Pretty typical for tornadoes outside the U.S. (and to a lesser degree outside Europe since we at least have ESWD there). TornadoLGS (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Earlier this year, I had a friend reach out to CyanideCN_ to ask for a source for a tweet about one of the EF2 tornadoes that they talked about. Basically, CMA uses a weird application similar to Twitter (called Weibo), and this account is tweeting their information. I almost get the impression of a manual version of what IEMBot does for NOAA. [6][7][8][9] are some examples of what I mean. I can't confirm that though, and obviously, TI12 doesn't want to clarify it any more than what was said back in 2022. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  I personally contacted Eric Wang on Twitter and he said that "there are tons of incredible damage but several two to three story residence in LiXin Village might be one of the most eye-catching damage along the path. These residence had one or two floor completely swept away, and its wall was mostly concrete with rebars anchored floor to floor, the external wall was also enhanced by prefabricated concrete boards." When I asked if CMA ever mentioned anything about a possible EF5 rating, he answered with "I don't remember they've ever mentioned about EF5, so I think the answer is no, even they haven't mentioned what EF5 damage should be like." Christo Georgiev (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

April 12 2020 Mississippi (Bassfield/Soso)

Relevant previous discussion: 1

• I don’t think there are any sources indicating possible EF5 damage, possible EF5 intensity, or recorded winds over 200 mph, so this should not be on the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

TI12 wrote out the summary of why the tornado was rated high-end EF4 and I know he has a lot of knowledge of it. Additionally, I see no source disputing the rating, so it doesn't go on this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There was a mesoscale discussion at the time discussing estimated winds of 180-205mph as it was ongoing. Would that count as a sufficient source to indicate possible EF5 intensity? 67.69.165.178 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

June 24 2021 Czech Republic

Relevant previous discussion: 1.

• I am not sure about this one. The official windspeed given to it was 380 km/h (236.1 mph) and it was rated on the new International Fujita scale. The windspeeds overlap in the new scale as a way to reduce confusion. The only comments about IF5 are "Three locations with IF4 damage were observed there. The tornado first impacted a row of newly built houses. Here, an IF4 rating was assigned to the damage of three well-built brick structures. One of the brick structures was completely destroyed, which would warrant an IF5 rating. However, a rather weak connection between the roof and the walls was found, which prevented the damage to be assigned an IF5 rating"([1]). No idea how to go about this tornado's discussion. From what I understand, the IF scale was designed to improve on the F/EF scales, but be designed for European construction. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The tornado was not rated IF5 so regardless of what the wind speed would equal on the other scale, this is not a possible F5/EF5/IF5 tornado. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

However it does mention a possible IF5 rating. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 14:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Where? It said the damage did not warrant an F5 rating, not that the tornado was possibly at F5 intensity here. That's two different things. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 18:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Neutral Agreement. The rating for the structure was considered for IF5 until the weak structural connection was found, therefore it could not receive the IF5 rating. The survey never mentioned a chance of IF5 intensity either, so it should not be included in the list. On a side note, we need to figure out how the IF scale will be operated with this list because of the overlapping windspeeds. Technically speaking, the windspeed rating assigned to this location was 236 mph and with the overlapping windspeeds, it is in the IF5 windspeed range and IF5 intensity. Next time we have a tornado rated IF3 or higher on the scale, the discussion will have to figure out what “possibly IF5 intensity” really means, but for the moment, we can keep it off the list until a more firm discussion in the future can help decide the “rules for the IF scale” for inclusion on this list. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Therefore this wasnt an EF5 either, needs to be deleted. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It was never on the list to begin with. This discussion was to add it to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

December 10 2021 TN/KY

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.

Whilst there was initially consensus against inclusion, the final result was a slight consensus for inclusion after additional supporting evidence was provided. It should be noted that future research publications may provide a different perspective on the event at which time another RfC may be required and a new consensus may emerge. Gusfriend (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Relevant previous discussions: 1 & 2

• This one should not be included until and unless a reliable source can be found. I've seem popular opinion from the Internet, but that basically counts for squat here. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with TornadoLGS, this should not be added to the list. In a video by NWS, they specifically stated that it cannot be upgraded unless new evidence is discovered to support an EF5 rating. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Agreed. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 17:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

  The NWS actually said the home in Bremen was well constructed and was not rated EF5 because a few trees were still standing nearby. They also said it was comparable to other EF5 tornadoes such as Joplin keep in mind NWS Springfield helped survey. SteeR said the vegetation damage was some of the worst they had seen since the 2011, and the tornado it's self had very similar characteristics to the Hackleburg tornado. If the December 10th tornado cannot be added then Vilonia shouldn't be on this list either because they were not rated EF5 for the same reason. Caleb Routt (talk) 14:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Actually, Vilonia is a different reason as to why it is being kept on the list (scroll up to find it). For this list, we have to have a NWS employee, tornado expert, or a academically published paper that says it was an EF5 or could have been an EF5. Straight from NWS, they said it could not be upgraded to EF5 and there was no evidence to support any winds greater than high-end EF4. That is why it is not going to be on the list. If there is a source of a NWS employee, tornado expert, or a academically published paper that says it was an EF5 or could have been an EF5, you can link that here and that would be enough to add it to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  See comment below. Also 12 foot trench, completely debarked trees, severe ground scouring, severe debris granulation etc are most certainly evidence of EF5. I have spoke to 2 surveyors who thought that tornado could of been rated EF5 there are more but they decided to go conservative. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Again, the NWS in LZK said there was not evidence of EF5 damage, therefore it should be deleted based on your own rules. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Would highly encourage you to watch this. The lead meteorologist from NWS says the tornado was on par with the Joplin tornado, and the Tri-State tornado which were both F/EF5s. It's definitely a discredit to the page if you don't add it. Time stamp: 2:05

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCjPMq-1oo8 Caleb Routt (talk) 15:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I just listened to that clip. He said it was on par with the Tri-state tornado (referencing path length) and the “Joplin storm” (referencing the supercell that created the Joplin tornado, rather than the tornado itself). Still no direct statement linking it to EF5 damage or EF5 winds. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:17, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You're definitely hearing what you want to just to have a reason not to add that tornado to the list because you cant admit the Czech tornado wasnt stronger. I understand how you're biased. The NWS in Paducah said in their video of the event that the tornado was comparable to other EF5 tornadoes in the past. They also said they cannot discount it being an EF5. The NWS also said Rochelle was not an EF5 yet is on the list, again the list seems fairly hypocritical. With that said the Czech tornado and Vilonia are getting deleted because both official sources say those were not EF5s. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, we already discussed (see above this section) that the 2021 Czech Republic tornado is not going to be added, but as I said earlier, read the section about the Vilonia tornado as that will be staying on the list as we have a source directly saying it may have reached EF5 strength. In this case, you seem to be fixated on a “This isn’t there, so this can’t be” argument. We discussed each tornado and did not use any of those type of arguments. Elijahandskip (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

And 12 foot trenching, 35 ton rail cars tossed uphill, broken foundations (among other things) isn't a cause for possible EF5 damage? Definite bias bro lol Caleb Routt (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, as explained below, we have to have sources that explicitly say “possible F5/EF5/IF5” for this list. TornadoLGS said it perfectly that NWS just barely stopped short of directly stating it. The slide in the video (I’m assuming you are referencing the NWS video I cited earlier in the discussion rather than the video you linked below), they did say it was compared to other EF4s/EF5s, but the never said directly it was a possible EF5. In fact, in the video, they said point blank it cannot be upgraded without further evidence. That statement from NWS is why it is not on the list (and is currently not planned to be on the list). A NWS employee, tornado expert (like Dr. Grazulis), or an academically published paper/conference presentation that says “possible F5/EF5/IF5” is needed. 0 bias. We purposely made these discussions to solve any bias issues and be able to show evidence for tornadoes on that list. The things you list are for sure possible EF5 damage (except the 12-foot trenching, since I know for a fact the tornado did not cause a 12 foot trench anywhere), but a reliable source in the meteorological world has not directly stated anywhere that the tornado caused possible F5/EF5/IF5 damage. I hope that clears up why the tornado cannot be on the list. Another way tornadoes can get on the list is evidence/statements saying it had (key word) winds in the F5/EF5/IF5 range. NWS said it possibly (and probably) had winds in the 200+ range, but “no evidence” to support that. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Your blatant refusal to accept proof is really troublesome to the validity of this page. Again "comparable to some EF5s is literally comparing it to EF5s. Yes it did produce a 12 foot trench in Hickman County Ky. The tweet mentioned this was the more shallow part of the trench and it was 8" here. You're also contradicting yourself, perhaps you should do more research, Elijah. You can look at the contextual damage. Again, that tornado absolutely deserves to be on the list and you are discrediting yourself as a person who stands for accuracy if you are not.

https://vortmaxblog.files.wordpress.com/2022/05/fhr4bh8xoambrih.jpg?w=1024 Caleb Routt (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

A self-published blog does not qualify as a reliable source. Also, no, the tornado did not produce 12-foot trenching. Based on the picture you showed, it produced 12 inch trenching, not 12 foot. Either way, that does not count for anything for Wikipedia as it is a mix of original research and unreliable sources. (P.S. I recommend you read everything TornadoLGS and myself have said and linked too. You seem to not have an understanding of what Wikipedia considers a reliable source or how we do not accept original research.) Elijahandskip (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

That photo came from a reliable met from Live Storms Media via twitter. It clearly says in the caption. A foot deep trench with extreme tree damage nearby is literally why the Philadelphia MS tornado was rated EF5, and this tornado did that therefore it should be on the list. Thank you for proving my point, glad to see we're on the same page. I'll go ahead and start the entry. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not add it. If you do, it will be removed as multiple editors have agreed it cannot be added. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you're breaking your own rules for this discussion. There's more than sufficient evidence given you're refusing to accept it due to bias. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Please link a reliable source that shows or explains something from the tornado was EF5 evidence. You have not done that yet. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I have done it multiple times, you are misconstruing words to fit your narrative. Its ok to admit you're wrong which you have done by making several contradictions. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You saw the caption and where it came from, I still have the screenshot and your response from another server. But That's irrelevant Caleb Routt (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Once again, a self-published picture/blog on Wordpress does not count as a reliable source for EF5 damage. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

To add on the the statement above, I would highly recommend reading WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Wikipedia is not allowed to have original research nor can Wikipedia “come to conclusions”. A reliable source, which in the context of these discussions means a NWS employee, tornado expert, or academically published paper/conference presentation has to provide the details which can directly be either quoted/summarized for an article. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Please see sources above, please understand PAH did not discount EF5. I think it's rather petty on Elijah's part not to add this for biased reasons. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that, for other tornadoes, we have sources explicitly stating that the tornado was or might have been an F5/EF5. The NWS sources stop short of that for the Mayfield tornado. So we run into issues of original research and synthesis there. Also, the Rochelle tornado is not on the list article, so I don't know what you're talking about there. TornadoLGS (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

They said it in their video, there is a slide where the explicitly said it was comparable to EF4s and even other EF5s. I would send a screenshot but you cant send photos on here. Caleb Routt (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If you want to refer to a specific point in the video, you can provide a time stamp. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If we're counting the NWS directly saying it's a 5, a good amount of tornadoes prior to like the 80s shouldn't be on this list.

Ethan Moriarty did come to the conclusion that it would take 203MPH winds to knock the water tower here. https://twitter.com/EMoriartyWX/status/1469753508685656066

Tim Marshall also listed potential EF5 DI's (Apartments in Dawson Springs, Church in Mayfield) he came across, although due to construction issues had to lower windspeeds, similar wording I believe in what he used in his Vilonia study.

I haven't watched the NWS video in full, but if they do say "Upon New Evidence" this could be reference to the new EF scale? I saw bits and pieces of it when it first came out.

I'm conflicted if this should be on there myself, but I did see holes in arguments, and the rant on twitter attracted me to here. MariosWX (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

and once again you clearly know it came from twitter. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@MariosWX: Would wouldn't need an NWS statement necessarily. Just a sufficiently reliable source. A journal article or something from Grazulis for instance. Though I'd like to see where Tim Marshall refers to possible EF5 DIs. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. If Tim Marshall said possible EF5 DIs (and we have a source for it), that is enough to add it to the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

He said it on his personal Facebook. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Message me on twitter Caleb Routt (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You need to post it here since things off Wikipedia can lead to major issues…WikiProject of Weather no longer does much of anything off Wikipedia over past issues that occurred off-Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:04, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Seconding what Elijah said. Off-wiki discussions are usually discouraged unless sensitive information is involved. Part of this is a matter of transparency (and not all of us are Twitter users). Also, if someone questions the addition in the future, we can refer back to this discussion. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You can't base your agreement on, "If not this, then this. That is against Wikipedia policy. Again, if your not going to be a productive part of this conversation, please leave.ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:41, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I cannot send screenshots on here so thats why. Caleb Routt (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

If it is not publicly available, which based on you needing to send screenshots, it isn’t, then it cannot be considered on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

It's public. Caleb Routt (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

You could share the link here, then. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

The issue is theres no real link to a facebook photo you have the option to share to profile but not as an individual link. Caleb Routt (talk) 23:40, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

No URL to copy/paste? TornadoLGS (talk) 23:42, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10227294301772986&set=pb.1523239328.-2207520000. Seems I have been mistaken, He only said that the Apartments in Dawson Springs were an EF5 candidate till he saw the construction, I can't find where he said the church was a candidate, he might have never said it at all.

Sorry for taking so long to respond, I work graveyard shifts on Friday at a market. MariosWX (talk) 13:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think he said the churches were EF5 worthy, but he did say 1 was well built. There was another survey crew who wondered if the damage was EF5, and said it "greatly exceeded the EF3 category" in Princeton. They also said "Other parts could be EF5".

https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/2021/12/13/surveying-kentucky-mayfield-tornado-storm-meteorologists-follow-path-destruction/6491956001/ Caleb Routt (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Here is the exact quote from Tim Marshall:

This is all that is left of the two-story apartment building. It certainly was a candidate for a 5 rating until I saw how it was built. — in Dawson Springs, Kentucky. (quoting him from the photo above for those who do not have facebook accounts). Correct me if I am wrong, but he is saying it was a candidate for EF5 until he saw the construction, which downgraded it to EF4? Am I understanding the quote correctly? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

That's what I interpret it as. Caleb Routt (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on past tornadoes in this discussion, the exact situation of a EF5 damage point being downgraded was pretty much determined to not be enough for inclusion. Examples were March 21 1952 MS/TN (F5 downgraded to F4), April 3 1974 Tennessee (F5 downgraded to F4), & June 24 2021 Czech Republic (IF5 damage point downgraded to IF4). If we decided to include 2021 western Kentucky tornado based on that logic, all three of those tornadoes would probably need to be added as well since they were either removed or not-added based on the same type of logic. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The Czech tornado was never rated IF5, and was not as intense as Mayfield in terms of damage. No contextual damage was as intense and the structural damage was not as extreme. This is a completely different case. This would mean 2013 El Reno should not be added to the list since it was also rated EF5. You are contradicting your own statement. I also sent a link above that clearly says 2 surveyors said the damage was "well exceeding EF3, and said EF5 was possible though the path". You are looking for any reason not to add this tornado and again showing your own bias. Caleb Routt (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case, you are showing extreme bias trying to find any reason to add it to the list. I'm not going through more debates/discussions. The exact same situation you just described about Tim Marshall rating something EF5, then downgrading to EF4 is exactly the same as the location that received IF5 damage until looked at, then downgraded to IF4. The news article linked [10] does in fact say "well exceeding EF3, and said EF5 was possible though the path", so that can be considered a 2nd potential reason to add it. I will note for the discussion is the article was published on December 13, 2021 (3 days after the tornado). NWS's video on the tornado came out much later and said no chance of EF5 rating, so the news article seems out-of-date (same as the NCEI F5 ratings for the two tornadoes downgraded in the 1900s). I feel like this discussion hasn't had much of anything new presented besides the Tim Marshall quote of EF5 damage downgraded to EF4. Unless someone else has anything else to add, my vote would be to keep off the list unless we decide to add the three tornadoes linked above over the Tim Marshall quote and the logic behind it. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You're bias is clear and obviously your unwillingness to provide real facts. If the NWS didn't think EF5 would have a chance they wouldnt mention a possible upgrade. Please look at facts and not bias. Also they made those statements regardless you are wrong. Caleb Routt (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

If this logic was taken into account, a lot more tornadoes would be on the list, including the 2021 Czech Republic tornado as ESSL/CHMI/SHMU directly said "would warrant an IF5 rating" for a structure that was then discovered to have 1 construction flaw, downgrading it to IF4. That is the exact same logic as what Tim Marshall said, which was like "possible EF5" for a structure, which was then discovered to have not been up to par for EF5 rating. 100% exact same situation. Please understand that and put aside the bias. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also it was never officially "downgraded" it was simply an EF5 candidate so again you are wrong please read and not dish out uninformed biases. Caleb Routt (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Then 2021 Czech Republic was also an IF5 candidate. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Czech Republic was never rated IF5 nor produced damage that was as intense as Mayfield. Please stop sending easily dismissible biased "info". Caleb Routt (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, if this gets approved i'll write the summery. As you and others know ive looked extensively at this tornado. I'll provide sources. Caleb Routt (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Caleb Routt based on all the discussions here, I think it would be best if you don’t write any summaries for this tornado since you have alluded to original research and self-published material (blogs/tweets). That would potentially add information that should not be in the notes section, which is basically the why it was a possible F5/EF5 rather than a full summary. Same goes in this case for TornadoInformation12, since they have a huge original research comment in this discussion as well. If anything, it would receive 3-5 sentences and that is it. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am similarly iffy on statements from during the initial survey, since this is not a case of a tornado having its rating changed, or having a rating disputed. Any case of the appropriate DoDs (e.g. slabbed houses) might raise the possibility of EF5 until quality of construction is determined. The distinction between EF5 and high EF4 usually comes down to a question of construction quality. The rating is always up in the air (no pun intended) before the survey concludes. Personally, I would like to see this tornado added, but it's the firmness of the sources that gives me pause. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Same. I want this to be added to the list. But because of all the previous discussions and obviously the NWS video, I'm lost on finding a true source to get it on the list. I'm hoping that sometime in 2023, some academic paper is published about it that just mentions "EF5" cause I would add it in a heartbeat with it. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

LOL that's convenient. I think you just have a bias and want to gatekeep a wiki article. I think it's best you stop acting like a know it all. Caleb Routt (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Well you just proved to myself and other that you 100% should not write the notes section nor participate any further in this discussion. You do a personal attack on me right after I switch my vote to neutral, all because I didn't instantly agree with you. Please refrain from doing personally attack on myself or any other editors or you may be blocked from Wikipedia. That said, myself and other editors also need a reminder about not doing personal attack towards you. So I highly recommend focusing on the content rather than the editors (and this is for everyone in this discussion). Elijahandskip (talk) 22:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey guys, I normally don't participate in these discussions, but I want to change that to specifically recommend against adding the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado to the list of possible EF5 tornadoes. I know quite a bit about this particular tornado, and adding this one would be a hit to our credibility. The reason being, is that I observed this Caleb Routt person push his self-made blog at a major weather forum, and it was full if inaccuracies regarding construction quality and misinterpreted damage photos (claims of ground scouring when there was none visible, ect), all with the apparent heavy bias and a goal of making a case for EF5 regarding this particular tornado. I have extensive knowledge of house construction in the US and how it applies to the EF scale, and I have a lot of experience with analyzing primary sources for evidence of violent contextual damage in historic tornado damage photos, and I can say there is no sufficient evidence of an EF5 event when it comes to this tornado. This case is different than more egregious examples of missed EF5 ratings, such as Vilonia, AR back in 2014 or Chapman, KS in 2016. The 2022 Western Kentucky tornado is different because despite the controversy, there was no single area from the Mayfield tornado that seemed to be clear-cut EF5 that was missed or ignored, unlike Vilonia. The NWS provided fair reasoning for the sub-EF5 rating this one, again, unlike Vilonia. The only two areas along the path where anchor-bolted homes were swept away were in Cambridge Shores and Bremen, and neither location warranted an EF5 rating and I will explain why.

Cambridge Shores Multiple anchor-bolted homes were swept away here, but there was no contextual evidence to bring the rating into the EF5 range, as per the way the EF scale was designed, extreme contextual damage is the main factor separating an EF4 from an EF5. While the blog in question makes claims of extreme contextual damage at Cambridge Shores (ground scouring and debris granulation), neither of these things occurred. The brownish color of the ground near the lake is misinterpreted as ground scouring, and the presence of debris granulation, a phenomenon in which structural debris is churned into small wood-chip or mulch-like fragments as small as coins, is not apparent in any photos at Cambridge Shores. In fact, much of the debris from homes here remained in large pieces relatively close to the foundations. While some cars were thrown here, they were not left unrecognizable or carried remarkable distances, and while some trees were debarked, the degree of debarking was not extreme or consistent with past EF5 tornadoes (compare to Parkersburg 2008, the 2011 EF5s, and Moore 2013). While the estimate of 170 MPH at Cambridge Shores may be a bit too low, there is no damage that met the EF5 criteria here.

Bremen There was a house given a high-end EF4 rating here, and it was completely obliterated with little debris remaining. NWS Paducah noted one of the main reasonings for keeping the rating below EF5 was that nearby trees were still standing. I have seen photos of these trees and this is a poorly worded explanation, as the real issue wasn't that they were still standing, but that they didn't sustain any kind of major debarking and it did not look like they experienced EF5 winds (again, refer to other tree damage photos from past EF5s). But the issue doesn't stop there, as this house was built on a bizarre and highly questionable foundation. While there were anchor bolts at this home, it was NOT a traditional sturdy slab foundation home. Instead, this was actually a block-foundation home that had a gravel fill poured into the empty space of the foundation, then a concrete slab was rested on top, apparently unanchored. When the tornado hit, the concrete floor slab slid off and broke into pieces. That is not good construction, and these photos show the barely debarked trees, the gravel fill and the unanchored concrete slab that broke.

https://twitter.com/JumpWx/status/1470797320468013068 https://twitter.com/JumpWx/status/1470797793044447238

Elsewhere in Bremen, other homes were obliterated and swept away with extensive wind-rowing, along with scouring and debarking noted. I will say that the contextual damage in this area was impressive, but unfortunately, all other homes in this area were lacking anchor bolts and were swept from poorly constructed pier and block foundations, meaning an EF5 rating was not possible. So, while this Caleb guy is going to try to make a case for EF5 here, there really isn't one, there aren't any reliable sources who have made a legitimate case for EF5, and he's trying to push his agenda despite that. I am not a NWS fanboy, and they get things wrong sometimes when it comes to ratings, but this is simply not one of those cases. Basically, if the extreme contextual damage in Bremen overlapped with the higher-quality house construction in Cambridge Shores, we would have a case for EF5, but that isn't what happened. In a nutshell, this is is a perfect example of a high-end EF4 that fell just short of the EF5 criteria. Adding this tornado to the list of possible EF5s will delegitimize the rest of the list, and I strongly recommend against doing so.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

1.) I think you just restated what I had been saying. I never once said this tornado should be rated EF5. Also never said that I am a surveyor. However, the contextual damage by far alludes to EF5 winds as many people including official surveyors have said. A direct quote from StEEr said that the tree damage was very similar to Joplin. Keep in mind tree debarking is more difficult to do in the winter months as a tree damage expert I have talked to said. I personally saw severe tree debarking in Dawson Springs.

2.) There is MAJOR debris granulation in Cambridge Shores. There is no specific size debris must be in order to count as granulation. Multiple photos besides the one on the blog have shown this granulation as well. Obviously we are not gonna see granulation like in plains tornadoes because those are slower moving tornadoes. Also yes, that is absolutely scouring.

3.) The NWS implied that this tornado could be upgraded to EF5 pending further analysis and the future new EF-Scale. Not many other NWS offices say this about other high end tornadoes. This is absolutely a contender.

4.) There's no agenda here, just the simple fact that if we're going to say other tornadoes were possibly EF5s and not this one it is an extreme voidance of the credibility of this page. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your analysis is moot; you don't work for the National Weather Service, so you don't get the final say. They did not say that it did possible EF5 damage, and you can't base your argument off of implying things because the NWS doesn't imply anything. Come back with a reliable source and then you can make an argument about this. Other than that, I'm not listening to anything you have to say. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I dont think any of you work for the NWS so any of your opinions are moot. I also never said I did work for them Caleb Routt (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The point here, being (because of the policies on no original research and no synthesis of ideas) our own analysis of the damage, and our own opinions of whether this tornado should have been rated EF5 don't really matter in whether it should be added to the list. Only what is directly stated by reliable sources. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

The lead meteorologist from the National Weather Service in Paducah, KY specifically stated at 2:08 in this video that the intensity of the Western Kentucky Tornado is "on par" with that of the 2011 Joplin Tornado, an event that is well-regarded and widely accepted to have been an EF5. Therefore, it would not jeopardize the list at all by adding this one to the list when some NWS meteorologists have specifically stated that this event was on par in strength with official EF5 tornadoes.

Link: https://youtube.com/uCjPMq-1oo8?t=128 OakhurstWX (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

That link is incorrect, this one is right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCjPMq-1oo8 OakhurstWX (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Caleb, I'm sorry but you are simply wrong on all 4 points, and it is clear to everyone at this point that you do not have the credibility, skills or knowledge to make these kind of calls. You clearly don't even know how to identify what scouring and debris granulation looks like. In fact, the tiny size of the debris VERY THING that makes debris granulation, well, debris granulation! While there is no specific size for what meets this criteria, the presence of intact lumber scattered everywhere is NOT debris granulation, and that is all there was in Cambridge Shores. Also, the fact that you think there was any ground scouring at Cambridge Shores shows that you lack objectivity, and that you have an issue with misidentifying contextual damage. The fact is, you have a lot of learning to do if you want to be taken seriously in these kind of discussions. Sorry to be harsh, but that is the truth. I don't want to hear any more about this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

If we are going to talk about credibility then none of us hold any true weight because we were not on the survey. I would highly suggest not making any contradictory statements if you are going to actually have any sort of decent information. It was not just lumber and I think it's pretty clear. I also personally saw severe granulation and scouring in Dawson Springs that was probably worse than Cambridge Shores.

I would also strongly urge you to understand the difference between instantaneous gusts and 3 second winds. If you use instantaneous winds as a means to justify an EF5 rating, (EL Reno 2013) then you are completely misinformed on the actual EF-Scale. Please refrain from telling me I lack knowledge or skills especially if you dont know this or can define what clear debris granulation is. Caleb Routt (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Caleb Routt: You have been told multiple times exactly what the requirements are for the list. Winds measured above 200 mph can have a tornado added to the list, regardless of time length. Obviously the EF-Scale is a DAMAGE scale, however, the scale estimates EF5 damage to start at 200 mph, therefore, any tornado with winds measured over 200 MPH (even if not the 3-second gust required by the scale) has the potential to have been at the intensity of a POSSIBLE EF-5 at some point in its life. I hope you get that these discussions are for the POSSIBLE EF5 List, not THE EF5 list. At this point, you are not actually arguing to add this tornado to the list, but rather to remove multiple tornadoes that have been on the list for YEARS & to add tornadoes that do not have any reliable sources confirming that they were a possible EF5, aka a source directly stating it. I’m not gonna debate what granulation and scouring occurred where or whatnot because as TornadolLGS said earlier, it counts as original research, which means it cannot be used on Wikipedia. All of us are getting a little annoying with the amount of effort you are putting in to debate practically the entire list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, instantaneous winds are likely to not cause EF5 damage, and since there was a paper published that states that it wasnt an EF5 then it shouldnt be on this list and you are breaking your own rules. Would recommend understanding the EF scale. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• I will note one thing: Wikipedia requires consensus in discussions for the outcome. It is very obvious in this specific discussion (about the inclusion of the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado in the possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower list, that this tornado should not be included on the list at the present time. A little later, we can officially close this discussion as a “No consensus” outcome, which will leave it to be opened in the future IF/WHEN a reliable source directly stats “possible EF5” and that location was not downgraded to EF4 or lower. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

• Noting that I have requested an admin or third party individual close this discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

  Tim Marshall noted here in his paper that Mayfield would have received an EF5 rating had this tornado hit better built structures. Keep in mind he ONLY surveyed the Mayfield, and Dawson Springs portion. He did not survey Bremen. https://www.academia.edu/90132303/Damage_Survey_of_the_Mayfield_KY_Tornado_10_December_2021?fbclid=IwAR23JjAvTRdu-5RTwW3NrZE456lSLp_KdAqFGSNhMdDtD9GeZeqZH9pgAZo Caleb Routt (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  https://www.academia.edu/90132303/Damage_Survey_of_the_Mayfield_KY_Tornado_10_December_2021?fbclid=IwAR23JjAvTRdu-5RTwW3NrZE456lSLp_KdAqFGSNhMdDtD9GeZeqZH9pgAZo

  Interesting thing to note, at the bottom Tim Marshall notes that the tornadoes rating may have been higher had construction been better and if the tornado was moving slower. It would be criminal not to include this in here since this is a conversation about rather Mayfield was a possible 5 or not. MariosWX (talk) 21:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I was about to note the exact quote that MariosWX mentioned. Here is the exact quote from Tim Marshall: “The NWS rated this tornado as a high-end EF 4. The tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered. Also, the fast forward speed of the tornado had little “dwell” time of strong winds over a building and thus, the damage likely would have been more severe if the tornado were slower.” That quote is similar to the quote said about the 2016 Chapman tornado. On that note, I think that quote ONLY could add this tornado to the list, so I am going to change my vote to neutral at the moment while this is discussed. ChessEric, United States Man, TornadoLGS, TornadoInformation12. Elijahandskip (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm kinda neutral as well, at this point, since that is starting to sound a bit like Vilonia. Though the distinction between high EF5 and EF5 usually comes down to quality of construction anyway. Also worth noting that Tim Marshall has a reputation for being conservative when it comes to assigning EF5 ratings. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think so. There was still no indication from him about a higher being NECESSARY rating from EF5 level winds. The same can also be said about the 2020 Bassfield-Moss tornado. THAT tornado blew away a seemingly well-constructed home, but there were too many flaws with the surrounding contextual damage to rate the tornado as such. TI12 does amazing job explaining why structures get assigned certain ratings and his explanation alone is what clinched for me as well. The quote also mentions that the tornado's fast forward speed also kept the tornado from doing damage that could be considered possible EF5 damage. The quote may be similar to the 2016 Chapman tornado, but that did not mention a limitation of why an EF5 rating can't be assigned other than it didn't hit the town directly. Mind you that in the 2011 Super Outbreak, tornadoes were moving at 50-60 mph and 4 of them produced EF5 damage despite this. The speed is the main limitation that I got from the quote and for THAT reason, I believe the tornado stays off this list. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with part of that actually. You have a good comment (that I agree on) about the speed aspect. But the "The tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered." is basically duplicate to the 2016 Chapman comment, which just said possible EF5 had it hit Chapman (which was more wind resistance structures). I'm remaining neutral still, but I am leaning more to inclusion based on that single sentence rather than exclusion. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

At this point I am neutral to weak support, since the quote from Tim Marshall indicates that he thinks the tornado may have reached EF5 intensity. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Forward speeds are irrelevant because StEEr said that the Dec 10th tornado produced vegetation damage similar to the 4/27 tornadoes and Joplin? Whats your point? Again, Tim only surveyed Mayfield and Dawson Springs, not Princeton, Bremen Barnsley etc where the tornado was arguably was stronger. Caleb Routt (talk) 11:49, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What's your point? Just because he surveyed two areas doesn't mean anything as, at the end of the day, the tornado is rated by the NWS not him. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

It does because the damage in other areas of the areas could be worse than in those 2 areas. high end EF4/5 tornadoes are not just rated by the NWS but by multiple agencies and other NWS offices. So it's likely some agencies or offices rated it as EF5 but it was rated EF4 by PAH. The same thing occurred in Tuscaloosa where another agency rated the tornado EF5 but was ultimately rated EF4. I dont think you have a solid argument for this not being added to the list besides stubbornness to facts. Caleb Routt (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Caleb Routt, please stop the personal attacks. Editors are allowed to have opinions and calling someone stubborn for not agreeing with you is just rude and not allowed on Wikipedia. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thats not an attack? Caleb Routt (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly, it might not be a violation of WP:NPA but, since you are a new editor, I'll say a confrontational attitude is not a good way to be starting off. Admittedly, it would certainly not be something new to WikiProject Weather, but we don't need more of it. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• After further consideration and reviewing the academically published paper, my !vote has changed to a must add for one major reason. I noticed Tim Marshall is not the only author on the paper. Christine L. Wielgos, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service of Paducah & Brian E. Smith, a meteorologist at NWS Omaha are the other authors on the paper. Therefore, this is not just Tim Marshall’s wording of it potentially being EF5 intensity (just not hitting anything to support EF5 damage), but also coming from an 2 NWS meteorologists. (Noting: I changed the wording in the proposed entry below to reflect the two other authors). I do acknowledge ChessEric’s comment below in the proposed entry section & TornadoInformation12’s comment above. That said, both comments appear to be more on the side of original research-style comments. TornadoInformation12 provided a very detailed explanation above as to why the tornado shouldn’t be on the list and ChessEric provided some good logical reasoning as to why this tornado differs from the 2016 Chapman tornado’s comments from NWS. However, I also know that Wikipedia cannot accept original research as viable reasoning. For the, the specific statement that I believe adds this tornado to the list is, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered. While ChessEric provided reasoning to why it is different from the 2016 Chapman tornado comment, I do not think we can accept the reasoning since that statement comes directly from a tornado expert & two NWS meteorologists. Therefore, I believe this tornado should be added to the chart. As noted earlier in this !vote, I changed the wording on the proposed entry below to reflect the other two authors. Pinging other participates in this discussion so this comment can be looked at and discussed: TornadoLGS, Caleb Routt, MariosWX. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  YES! Christine was a major help to the blog I did on this event and verified everything I had on there. I should have said I talked to her and NWS Paducah but I didnt think it was allowed. Caleb Routt (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

It isn’t and your blog is still not going to be accepted as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Again, the ONLY reason my !vote changed was because of the potential of EF5 intensity being mentioned by a tornado expert and two NWS meteorologist. No other reason. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Private communications and such can be brought up in discussion, for sure. We're just more limited in what can be used as a source in article space (see, for instance, my mention of the Tim Samaras talk for another tornado on this talk page). TornadoLGS (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Well in that case i've got some pretty good sources from at least 1 other meteorologist who says EF5 is very possible. However what they said was essentially the same thing Tim and others have said. Here is a quote from STEER (A group of engineers who study disasters and damage). Here is a quote from their findings.

"Notably, the destruction of buildings observed along the track of the Quad-State tornadoes was, in many ways, on a par with the worst damage witnessed by the authors after prior tornadoes, including the very deadly 2011 tornadoes (Tuscaloosa EF4 and Joplin EF5). A telling sign in this outbreak is the condition of vegetation surrounding buildings, with the FAST noting splintering of tree trunks at mid-height and stripping of branches from the trunk, all reminiscent of the landmark 2011 tornadoes."

Link: https://www.designsafe-ci.org/data/browser/public/designsafe.storage.published/PRJ-3349 Caleb Routt (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I wasnt saying it is an official source. Caleb Routt (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. I just don't believe that there is enough definitive reasoning for this tornado to be recategorized based on the information I've seen. Also, I'm still not considering Caleb's analysis because he's trying to push his agenda, which is not helpful in this situation. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Wheres evidence of an agenda? Sounds a bit biased Caleb Routt (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmmmmm...Henryville? El Reno? Vilonia? South Moravia? This tornado? You've been trying to push your opinions on everyone else and then when you don't agree with you, you want to call us all bias. The evidence is right here, and everyone else, but you, will agree. You don't have to believe it, but that's EXACTLY what you've been doing from the start. Your blog is not a reliable source; stop trying to make it one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I have said multiple times that my blog isnt an official source. I dont see your point Caleb Routt (talk) 01:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed Entry

Proposed entry by Elijahandskip Version 2 (edits based on TornadoLGS’s comments below)

Day	Year	Country	Subdivision	Location	Fatalities	Notes	Rated F5/EF5 by
December 10	2021	United States	Tennessee, Kentucky	Woodland Mills (Tennessee), Cayce (Kentucky), Mayfield, Princeton, Dawson Springs, Bremen, McDaniels	57 (515+ injuries)	2021 Western Kentucky tornado — A long-tracked wedge spawned by the quad-state supercell, that damaged, destroyed, or obliterated thousands of structures along a path of 165.6 miles (266.5 km) while moving at 60 miles per hour (97 km/h). The communities of Cayce, Mayfield, Princeton, Dawson Springs and Bremen, Kentucky took the majority of the EF4 damage. The National Weather Service officially rated this tornado EF4. In 2022, Timothy Marshall, a meteorologist, and structural and forensic engineer, Christine L. Wielgos, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service of Paducah, & Brian E. Smith, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service of Omaha, published a damage survey of portions of the tornado’s track, particularly through Mayfield and Dawson Springs. At the end of the report, they said, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered. Also, the fast forward speed of the tornado had little ‘dwell’ time of strong winds over a building and thus, the damage likely would have been more severe if the tornado were slower.”	Timothy P. Marshall, Brian E. Smith, Christine L. Wielgos

• Above is the proposed summary for this tornado’s entry. Not much detail is needed for this, especially since Tim Marshall agreed with the NWS rating of this tornado and just was alluding to how it may have been EF5 intensity. I think it will work since the main reason for the entry is Tim Marshall’s quote and not any of the other reasons (OR or not OR) presented by various editors above. Anyone support this? Elijahandskip (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• Just a few tweaks to recommend: say "rated EF4" instead of "rated an EF4" since we should avoid using tornado ratings as nouns where we can (at least in article space). "Quad-State" should not be capitalized, though I'm not entirely sure it's relevant to the entry as a possible EF5. Also, the last community should include the state (i.e. no pipe). TornadoLGS (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• @TornadoLGS: I just did the tweaks. Look good? Also, the comment about it being from the quad-state supercell is sort of the “intro” statement (if you would call it that) to the tornado. Not really a reason why it would be an EF5, but rather just a one line mentioning the tornado’s big fact of a long-track wedge and the infamous quad-state supercell that created it. We can exclude it if we want, but I revised the first sentence to make it a little shorter as well. Version 1 to Version 2. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• I made one more tweak. Yeah, I do think the quad-state bit is worth including. Especially since a lot of people probably still think there was a quad-state tornado, rather than a family. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

• I saw your last tweak. Slight facepalm moment on my end since I removed a different pipe for a fix…lol… Anyway ChessEric & TornadoInformation12 would you be ok with the current wording for the possible entry for the tornado to the list? Elijahandskip (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm sorry; I just don't think adding this tornado is a good idea. The reason I just don't agree is wording. The 2016 Chapman tornado didn't encounter a more wind-resistant structure because IT COULDN'T since most of its track was through open terrain. This tornado is different; it moved through forested areas along its ENTIRE journey, so it all came down to contextual evidence of the tornado being EF5, not from not hitting anything (Chapman EF4) or the question of whether EF5 winds may have occurred (Vilonia EF4). The damage did not suggest EF5 intensity, so I don't believe it. By that logic, every EF4 tornado that did not have enough contextual evidence to support EF5 intensity (i.e. the 2015 Rochelle tornado) would be on this list. It all comes down to precedence, and while I respect Tim Marshall, his statement is too vague to me and I don't support the tornado going on this list. However, if I'm overruled here, than the wording is fine. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

  Contextual damage is going to look much different depending on the tornado's structure/intensity and it's forward speeds and the season it's in. For example, trees are much harder to debark in the winter months than in mid-spring to late summer months. Chapman KS was a slow moving tornado with a much larger RMW, unlike the Mayfield tornado which had a much narrower fast moving core. There were several spots where the tornado pulled entire debarked trees from the ground and tossed them into nearby fields. Extreme vehicle damage occurred at the Mayfield Candle Factory, several of which were thrown or destroyed beyond recognition. The tree damage for instance in Princeton was extreme, and the field behind the UK building was scoured with vehicles thrown from the parking lot thrown over 50 yards. So yes, this tornado had large amounts of contextual damage. Also the rule here is we need 1 reliable resource that says EF5 was possible (which was Tim Marshall's). The rule Wasn't if you agreed with him it or not. Caleb Routt (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Same can be said about the Rochelle tornado. It moved fast and had a very small core. It tossed vehicles; it swept away well-constructed homes; and scoured asphalt and ripped grass out the ground. You know what else is notable about it? ITS NOT ON THIS LIST. I said NOTHING about whether I agreed with him or not; I said his wording was too vague. Also, I'm not changing my vote based on analysis you made. I've said it before and I'll say it again; you don't work for the NWS, so your analysis means diddly-squat to me. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 22:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  Well then that would make your analysis of Rochelle meaningless too. Rochelle also wasnt as fast moving as Mayfield. Also Tim Marshall (and multiple others) have said Mayfield was possibly an EF5, he or others didnt say the same about Rochelle. Caleb Routt (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

ChessEric, may I ask why you think it is vague? I’m guessing it is because they didn’t directly say the term “EF5” as they instead said “rating might have been higher”, but some clarification would probably help any confusion myself or others have by your comment. Elijahandskip (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Yes, it is true that he did not specifically say EF5, but he also did not mention what he meant by wind-resistant structure nor how much "dwell" time was needed for more intense damage. In the case of Vilonia, Marshall said that the ratings assigned were lower-bound when it came to the tornado being rated high-end EF4 and said that the tornado could have had winds of EF5 strength at some point based on the damage done. From the quote you have, it appears that while Marshall says that the tornado could've been higher rated, he said nothing about winds or engineering. Instead, he said "if," which, to me, means that nothing along the path met the standard of what EF5 damage would be. He said nothing about EF5 winds or structures possibly having EF5 damage. He said IF the tornado had moved slower and/or IF it had destroyed a more wind-resistant building, the rating may have been higher. To me, that implies that there is not any evidence of damage that could POSSIBLY be rated EF5. In my opinion, that's why Rochelle is like this tornado. Extreme damage? Yes. Enough proof of EF5 damage? No. That's why the statement is too vague. He was not specific on what structure or what time period was needed for ANY PART OF THE DAMAGE PATH to be rated EF5. Yes, he didn't examine the entire damage path, but that has nothing to do with it because that's another IF scenario. SHOW ME where he thought that EF5 winds or damage occurred could've occurred, and I'll change my mind. Other than that, I still say no. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 01:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

He literally said the apartment in Dawson Springs was an EF5 candidate. It sounds like you are trying your best not to have this not added by purposely misinterpreting facts in order to push an agenda. Caleb Routt (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can't read it. Why don't you put the quote instead of accusing me of stuff? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 02:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Noting for ChessEric that he said it was an EF5 candidate prior to surveying the apartment building in Dawson Springs, which then was downgraded to EF4 since it could not support an EF5 DI. That quote from Tim Marshall is similar to multiple other tornadoes and instances that aren’t making the list (basically duplicate to the IF5 situation with the 2021 Czech Republic tornado) and based on all the previous discussions, it doesn’t qualify for anything in terms of inclusion on the list. Caleb Routt, I wish you would stop using that because if that was the only “evidence” presented about EF5 potential, I would have continued to have been a no vote and we have had this conversation a few times also about it and you are the only one who thinks that means stuff in terms of inclusion. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

One thing I do find interesting about this tornado, however, is that the intense ground scouring in Hickman County, Kentucky was not rated because no structures were hit in that portion of the track. From what I've seen in the past, tornadoes have been rated EF5 based on ground scouring. In fact, the 2011 Philadelphia, Mississippi tornado was rated EF5 essentially due to ground scouring and vegetation damage with EF5 structural damage being applied to only about three or four areas. There was also intense ground scouring that was noted to be from EF5 intensity winds at the beginning of the path of the 2011 Smithville, Mississippi tornado. I'm not changing my vote, but I thought that was interesting. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

There were a few structures after that area was it, it literally vanished several out buildings but of course those cannot be rated EF5. The tree damage near the ground scouring was absolutely extreme for the winter time though Caleb Routt (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

• Noting I have added it to the list. TornadoInformation12 provided a solid reason, but sadly, it was mostly WP:OR. ChessEric, the only other opposing editor provided a solid reason, but with myself, Caleb Routt and MariosWX In support and TornadoLGS on a neutral stance over the Tim Marshall/NWS damage survey comments, I think there isn’t enough to end a no-consensus at the moment. Further discussion could easily remove it from the list, but for now, it has been added. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2022 (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.

April 29 2022 Kansas

Since we are having a discussion location/record for every tornado on the list, I was noting/starting this for the April 29, 2022 Andover, Kansas tornado. Odd case, but basically ESSL did photogrammetry research that was presented at an AMS conference in October 2022, showing instantaneous windspeeds well over 200 mph, with the highest being 118 m/s (264 mph). They also showed it being equal to a high-end IF4/low-end IF5. For the windspeed reason and graphic showing potential IF5 windspeeds, I added the tornado. I did specify that their evidence was photogrammetry, since it was rated EF3 by NWS and the EF scale is different than the IF scale research. Weirdness all around, but nevertheless, 264 mph winds with a graphic showing it in the IF5 range was good enough to post since it was presented at an AMS conference on local severe storms. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Wait; I'm confused. Are you saying it would be rated IF5? If that's the case, it doesn't belong on this list because the U.S. uses the EF-scale, not the IF scale. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 06:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really. Weird case of research saying 264 mph instantaneous winds. Because it was ESSL conducting the research, they were comparing it to the IF scale and showed it as being equal to the IF5 range. Unlike the Czech Republic tornado in 2021, this wasn’t a damage type addition, but rather research showing instantaneous winds up to 264 mph. The research wasn’t based on the IF scale, just compared to the IF scale to show where it would fall. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Addition was based on the 264 mph winds presented at the AMS conference. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There are too many holes here, so including this is not a good idea imo. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Though Andover was likely pushing violent intensity.The EF Scale is a 3 second gust scale. As far as I know, the 200+ measurements from Andover were instantaneous gusts, may be wrong here tho. MariosWX (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

MariosWX That is correct. ESSL did a research case study on it using instantaneous wind speed measurements and came up with a few 200+ mph measurements with the highest hitting 264 mph. On the graphic presented at the AMS conference, they placed the 264 mph wind measurement on where it would be on the IF scale, which came out to high-end IF4/low-end IF5 (because the IF scale uses overlapping windspeed ratings on purpose). Elijahandskip (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

That simply is not enough. Nobody explicitly challenged the accuracy of the EF3 rating, and nobody verbally or via text called it a possible EF5. This is all being extrapolated from a visual graphic, and that doesn't cut it. I really think you should get rid of it. It's gonna hurt credibility, trust me on this.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

You are correct that no one said it was possibly an EF5, that said, the graphic presented by the ESSL at the AMS conference shows the instantaneous windspeed in the IF5 range. Now ChessEric has a good point that the US uses the EF scale and not the IF scale, but for your reference, it was never in consideration as a potential EF5. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

• Noting for discussion purposes that 170.24.150.2 removed the tornado from the list with the edit summary of rm per ChessEric and TornadoInformation12. While I personally do not agree with the removal of it from the list (especially from a person who hasn’t participated in the discussion and a person who was previously blocked as a suspected sock), I’m going to respect it since two other editors agree it shouldn’t be on the list. Guess this tornado’s case is closed then. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

  Meh. I'm really indifferent about the whole thing now. XD ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments not for a specific tornado

I want to see more proof about the Bassfield/Soso Tornado on the damage survey too see if we were missing anything about the tornado. It’s up there for it possibly having EF5 winds but from the damage survey it wa a just tree damage that seem to be the case. Either way this one and the Centreville/Greensboro Tornado are the other 2 that I want to find more information about Colin777724 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Colin777724: Feel free to create a section for those tornadoes you think could be included. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

If I drive to Mississippi this year or next year an go on south 49 to where the original tornado was, I will try and see if the trees are still damaged by that because that could show just how strong the tornado was from not letting the trees to grow back Colin777724 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

For the purposes of Wikipedia, that would be original research. I am not aware of tree regrowth (or lack thereof) being an indicator of intensity. In any case, it's only been 2 years. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've recently found a PDF https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f0c6/422483460e2f1700b96c434fcad10bdcd253.pdf discussing DOW &/or Raxpol readings, in particular from Moore, Carney, and El Reno. I find the info in here rather interesting, and thought others should give it a read!MariosWX (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I have RaxPol data of 2013 Shawnee and there were several points of winds over 200 mph, and with the contextual damage it's very likely that thing reached EF5 intensity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caleb Routt (talk • contribs) 01:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)