Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

2021 Czech Republic IF4 for the possible IF5 list

Wanted to have a discussion about adding the 2021 South Moravia tornado to the list of possible F5/EF5/IF5/T10+ section. Back in June 2022 (about a year after the tornado), ESSL, CHMI, SHMÚ, ZAMG, and some universities published a detailed damage survey/study ([1]) on the tornado using the International Fujita scale. On page 13 of the report, they state "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. So, the report does at least mention IF5. In edit summaries (good faith revert of my addition), TornadoLGS brought up a point saying ...the argument that the damage would have been rated IF5 if the quality of construction were better is a weak one. It would also apply to any EF4 that leaves bare slabs. While I believe that is a valid discussion to have, I would say not every report that leaves bare slabs makes a reference to EF5. A good recent example is Pembroke, which slabbed four homes and got EF4 185, with no mention of a higher rating being considered in the prelim reports. Playing devils advocate here, one may argue Mayfield had EF5 references from NWS, but will remain EF4 also per NWS.

Another point to bring up is the complete difference in the IF Scale from the F/EF scales. There is a report specifically on the IF scale ([2]), but on page two of the Czech Republic tornado report, it states: International Fujita scale was used instead of the original Fujita scale because it contains more damage indicators. It was also chosen over the Enhanced Fujita scale, which does not reflect common building practices within central Europe. This scale was designed specifically for European construction rather than American construction, so correlations to the F/EF scale can be complicated.

In my opinion, I believe it should be added because: The report mentions IF5 was being considered before the weak connection was located. This point is similar to 2014 Vilonia (structural flaws caused EF4 not EF5 damage) & 2011 Tuscaloosa (one survey team rated some of the damage as EF5) EF4s, which are listed in the section. Estimated peak windspeed was given at 380 km/h (236.1 mph), which does surpass the beginning of EF5 winds of above 200mph.

Pings: @ChessEric:, @Joshoctober16:, @TropicalAnalystwx13:, @Colin777724:, @IndyPlaneSpot:, @TornadoInformation12:, @Mmapgamerboy:, @JimmyTheMarble:. Elijahandskip (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

i honestly feel like we are also being too strict on the list of possible EF5 , Goldsby is a good example of a tornado that should of not been removed from this list , but i can tell ya if goldsby cant be added then i dont think south moravia can be added , while i agree with tornadoLGS on not adding every tornado that swept clean a home , but any tornado that almost got rated EF5 but a tiny little thing stop it should be added (bassfeild is a example of would of been EF5 if a truck didn't possibly crash into the home) , and now on a video goldsby and the newcastle on the same day could be both upgraded to EF5 in the future , for now its the only 2 i know that might get upgraded. Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I know we have been strict about inclusion. I cleaned up this page a while ago and removed some entries (mostly entries where the possible F5/EF5 status was not supported by the sources given). IIRC I removed Goldsby because the cited source mentioned the possibility of EF5 intensity for Chickasha, but stopped short of saying that for Goldsby. I'll give the links in this discussion a closer look later since I'm tired and a bit distracted now. I do think we should be careful with how much we read into sources since that could get into WP:SYNTH territory fairly easily. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Well this discussion then plays a larger role than just adding one tornado. Should we start an RfC based around the cleanup of that section? Elijahandskip (talk) 21:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Possibly. I have eliminated the WP:SYNTH issues that I could, though some of entries are not as reliably sourced as I would like (Edmonton and Buladelah come to mind). The discussion here seems to be more on whether we should loosen the criteria for inclusion. I will say that one outcome that I would like to avoid is eliminating all non-official F5/EF5 tornadoes. That idea was attempted by one editor and it has come up in discussions once or twice. As to the South Moravia tornado, I think the case for IF5 status is a bit weak than Tuscaloosa or Vilonia since a team rated damage EF5 for the former and Tim Marshall stated that the Vilonia tornado may have reached EF5 intensity and probably would have been rated F5 on the original F scale. In South Moravia it's stated that such damage to a more structurally sound building would have been rated IF5, but the distinction between F4/F5 or EF4/EF5 is usually one of structural integrity anyway, so I don't find it that significant a statement. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

something strange im starting to notice is nws likes to only state the F5 possibily on non offical sites , stuff like (we were talking about if we realy had 3 EF5 on that day and i hope to later upgrade them , but dont tell them i said that) i know it sounds a bit conspiracy theory for that part , but somthing to note , i herd also that nws has to try to not talk about the posibilies of the chance of a higher rating after EF3 , the nws ruling + WP:SYYNTH causes this list to get oddly missing some tornadoes.

But it seems that 200 MPH was originaly what made the old F scale rating , meaning im wondering if we should add all the tornadoes that got a 200 mph EF4 DAMAGE rating , im unsure what tornadoes did have this , the few i do is chapman , goldby , newcastle , rochelle EF4.

also a past F5 of october 14 swept clean only one poorly built home , while theres a EF3 in 2007 that swept clean a well built home , it seems a bit odd to just ignore a fact like that.

also there's not one scale that list a 5 on a rating for a tornado with winds under 291 mph (IF scale is the highest), it would be nice to have some way to add some possibly chance EF5 that isn't by the official government , like if it got measured with winds over 290 mph or if high rise building got the highest di dod (mid range is over 228 mph, only very poorly built can be rated EF4) , a lot of wiki things lets more then one thing(one official human made base statement) for there listing , as long as you only let the non official EF5 get in by official statement , its going to make a lot of conspiracy theory talk come in. Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

A new thing I just recognized is that the IF Scale overlaps with the upper/lower bounds (except IF0- and IF5 for their lower/upper bound). An IF5 is really 203 mph to 337. Thankfully, the Czech Republic IF4 is the only IF4 right now, but this adds a whole new conversation, because it now makes more sense why a weak connection prevented IF5 from being assigned. The tornado's damage qualified in the IF5 windspeed range. The problem is, the peak windspeed they gave it of about 236.1 mph is in the range of IF3, IF4, and IF5. So much confusion with the overlapping scales now... Elijahandskip (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

That sounds like a headache. We'll have to be careful of any potential IF5 tornadoes. I figure this means we can't use wind speed estimates in this case. Honestly, this is even more of a headache than the Dames and Moore scale. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: You got to figure out why your pings to me aren't working. LOL! In any case, from what you put in, I don't think we should include the Monrovia tornado to this list. I believe the possible F5/EF5 list should only include tornadoes where F5/EF5 could have occurred. For example, the Mayflower/Vilonia EF4 tornado was rated this way despite possible EF5 damage indicators because of the flawed construction of those structures, but was still deemed to have possibly have reached EF5 intensity. In the many instances I've seen of EF5 tornadoes, the rating is assigned to that tornado not just due to high structural durability of the buildings destroyed (i.e. anchor-bolted or large structures being leveled and/or swept away), but rather from other non-conventional or non-structural instances of damage. (i.e. Joplin EF5 tornado, which did a small area of EF5 structural damage, but mostly had many instances of throwing vehicles considerable distances, removing manhole covers and concrete parking stops, scorned pavement, etc.) In any case, the title of this article is going to be interesting to talk about now that the ratings that can be listed for this article are F5, EF5, T10, and IF5 along with the tornadoes that possibly could've been rated that. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 21:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Elijahandskip pinged you this time. Not sure why it didn't work. I know it has to be a signed comment for the ping to work (i.e. it won't work if you sign the comment and then add the ping), but it appears to have been done correctly here, and I got the ping. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling the damage survey team is being toxic towards the media not allowing tornadoes to be rated EF5 even when there would be clear EF5 damage to structures. The problem however is the coverage is too small and for this tornado specifically I would say the coverage of surveying the damage was too scattered possibly and not covering the whole thing which in general is really tough. But if we have a not so strict rule of tornadoes being rated 5 then I’m not sure what the out come would be for the near future Colin777724 (talk) 03:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Discussion being moved to Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion#June 24 2021 Czech Republic. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Rochelle

Can we add the very high end ef4 in Illinois to possible ef5? because it was 200 mph and close of being a ef5 Lolkikmoddi (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lolkikmoddi: If you look at the talk page section just above this one, you will see a reference to a large discussion about the “possible F5/EF5 tornadoes list”. The 2015 Rochelle tornado is one of the tornadoes in consideration, so I would recommend participating in that large discussion. Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

About the image states xenia was the only tornado to have a preliminary F6 rating.

however some new info came out showing a other one had a preliminary F6 rating https://twitter.com/SkyPixWeather/status/1583502213565255682?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1583502213565255682%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url= however its up for you guys to say if this is legit enough to change this info Joshoctober16 (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly the worksheet is. Is this a professional source or, as one comment indicates, a student? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Lets be careful about what we are allowing

Toning down a bit from my last post, but I think we need to be a little more careful about what we add to the list. The Andover 2022 entry is a biiiiig stretch, and I can promise you that no working professionals in the meteorological and damage surveying field, believe that to be a legit EF5 candidate. The justification is extrapolated from a wind speed graphic in a presentation, even though nobody verbally said or published anything claiming that it was a possible EF5, and I think that is very questionable reasoning.

Also, where the heck did Washington/Goldsby, OK 2011 go? That one, unlike Andover is VERY controversial within the meteorology career field. I had an AMS video presentation source where NWS Norman damage surveyor Kiel Ortega explicitly, verbally talked about a disagreement with his NWS coworker about the rating for Goldsby, and the controversy surrounding why they went with high-end EF4. That is MUCH stronger evidence of a possible EF5 than some things listed here, but you guys got rid of it? I mean what exactly is going on, did you even watch the source video? I know the goal is to improve the accuracy of this list, but when you get rid of sourced, totally viable additions like Goldsby, then add something more questionable like Andover, you are doing the exact opposite of that.

Anyway, this video contains audio of a NWS damage surveyor admitting that the rating for Goldsby was a source of controversy, even at the workplace. How is that not enough? https://ams.confex.com/ams/92Annual/flvgateway.cgi/id/19926?recordingid=19926

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

@TornadoInformation12: For the link you provide, I can only see the citation, and no content. I don't think Goldsby has been on the list for years, though I could be mistaken. I think it was left off because, last time I saw it anyway, the sources we had stopped short of actually saying it might have been EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TornadoInformation12, if you look in the discussion section for the Goldsby tornado, Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion#May 24 2011 Oklahoma (Bradley/Goldsby), there has been basically no comments, with Joshoctober16 providing a reference to a book & ChessEric commenting that he believes sources exist. Just put that reference in the discussion and it would be added without controversy. Also, you would wondering about the 2022 Andover tornado being added, so I recommend you check out Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion#April 29 2022 Kansas as I was the one who added it, but ChessEric does not believe it is notable and a third comment by MariosWX was a neutral more or less question style, but still a comment. In fact, all of the tornadoes on the list or being considered for the list have discussions ongoing at Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion, so I highly recommend checking those discussions out and commenting respectively in some of them. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:46, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Extra comment: Also, if you relook at the entry for the 2022 Andover tornado, it never said “EF5”, the graphic presented was for IF5, but again, I highly recommend replying in that large discussion list since every tornado being considered for the list or already on the list has its own discussion section. Elijahandskip (talk) 03:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look back. I removed Goldsby when I reformatted the list at the beginning of 2020. The reason was that the source did mention possible EF5 for Chickasha, but didn't explicitly mention that possibility for Goldsby. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Guys, its the VIDEO OF KIEL ORTEGA TALKING where the Goldsby rating controversy is EXPLICITLY mentioned. It was NEVER MENTIONED IN THE PDF on the May 24 outbreak. You guys are saying "I didn't see anything that explicitly said that", only because you aren't looking at the right source. Now the only issue I can think of is problems from Flash player incompatibility, but playable or not, 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. Bottom line: Goldsby should have never been removed. Please go through the sources with a fine-toothed comb, as I would never add something to this list that doesn't have a solid source and basis. Are we really gonna get rid of this just because Flash player has issues now?

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

That video was not in the references when I removed the tornado's entry. Why didn't you cite that? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I had it in there when I added Goldsby years ago, so somebody else must have gotten rid of it due to what I assume are Flash player issues, so that isn't my doing.

TornadoInformation12 (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)TornadoInformation12

Okay, I did a double check, and that video was cited as a source, but I removed it, stating that the cited source did not dispute the EF4 rating. I cannot say what I saw, or didn't see in the video that prompted the response from me. I was going over a lot of sources for different entries at the time. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

My requirement for a tornado being a possible EF5 despite having a lower rating really boils down to an expert in the meteorological field stating that (a) EF5 winds may have occurred in a specific region of the damage path (i.e. reliable/believable EF5 tornadic winds being measured), (b) noting that a structure may have received EF5 damage despite having a lower rating (i.e. damage to a structure being rated high-end EF4 due to contextual discrepancies that did not allow an EF5 rating to be applied), and/or (c) an acknowledgement while the damage done by a tornado did not reach the level needed to be rated EF5, it may have been rated as such if it had hit more structures along its path (i.e. 2016 Chapman EF4; this does not include the 2021 Mayfield EF4 since that tornado was in a forested area for its entire life). For me, this makes it simpler for me to make arguments for or against a tornado being added as a possible EF5. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 15:38, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It will be worth noting that a number of the examples from Grazulis simply say "possibly F5" or something like that, but in those cases there may not be enough information (e.g. on construction quality) to say F5 conclusively. We might have similar cases when the new books come out. Though I think your point about trees in the case of Mayfield is getting into WP:OR territory. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC about the inclusion of tornadoes via a specific source

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.

---

A series of ongoing discussions since July 2022 have been working to fix and organize the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes’s section for Possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. One specific source, 1998-1999 Tornadoes and a Long-Term U.S. Tornado Climatology by the National Climate Data Center is used for multiple tornadoes on the list. Which option is best? Further information below the options.

1. Source is outdated, meaning any tornado on the list solely with that reference for a possible F5 rating should be removed.
2. Source is fine to use for possible F5 ratings for the list.
3. Other (Specify in discussion)

Elijahandskip (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Further information

Specifically, the March 21, 1952 Mississippi/Tennessee tornado, the May 30, 1961 Nebraska tornado, the April 11, 1965 Indiana (Lebanon & Sheridan) tornado, and the April 27, 1971 Kentucky tornado (links go to the respective tornado’s discussion) use the source as the sole possible F5 reason. Other tornado’s in the list use the source, however, a secondary source also mentions the possible F5 rating, so those tornadoes are not in question for this discussion. The author of this paper was the National Climatic Data Center.

Discussions

• Option 2 — Numerous historial/archived meteorological documents are used. Some do not even exist anymore besides the archived versions. The document was from the NCDC, meaning it was an official publication from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was given the sole authority, by the U.S. congress to publish official meteorological data for the United States and U.S. territories. So, in the sense, this is NOAA saying the tornadoes were F5. The tornadoes mentioned in this publication, however, do not mean they should be on the real F5/EF5 tornado list as some were officially downgraded after this publication. That said, this does not disqualify them from the list of possible F5/EF5 tornadoes which were rated lower. Elijahandskip (talk) 07:57, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2. If there's more recent scholarship that casts doubt on a specific classification because of newer techniques it can of course be examined on a case by case basis, but there's nothing wrong with the source as is. NOAA is one of the most reliable sources there is. It's fine. --(loopback) ping/whereis 12:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2, unless there is a specific better source which contradicts this one. NOAA is reliable. --Jayron32 21:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2: the section title conveys sufficient uncertainty to the reader such that a possibly outdated source can't really do any harm. Δπ (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2! If you want, add a footnote to the page clarifying that qualification for the list is "inclusion in one or more reliable meteorological source". If you further want, you could say "contemporaneously reliable" and add a list of specific examples. I love that this came to an RfC. – SJ + 03:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Sj: Well, we are a little bit away from being about to do that footnote idea. Since each tornado is different, there will probably be a few RfC's needed to fully clarify and repair the list based on community consensus and feedback. For example the November 29, 1992 Australia tornado (link goes to that tornado's discussion section) was added based on a retired Bureau of Meteorology meteorologist. The source is not as reliable as NOAA is, especially since it is a private case-study. But, then the question comes into play: Do we discount a retired meteorologist who's official job as a government meteorologist, was to survey the tornado? I'm trying to locate which things need a larger-style RfC (like this one which affects four tornadoes on the list) first and then trying to tackle the oddity case ones. I will probably end up doing a large RfC in the end for those oddity cases if I can figure out the best way to do it. But that's a future me problem. As was one said to me (I forget who and I'm not going to scroll through hundreds of edits to find it), the longer discussions can be some of the most beneficial and rewarding ones. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC) P.S. Sorry for my little rant. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Fully agreed with that saying :) – SJ + 19:59, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 Honestly, I don't think the sources for historical tornado data should be considered outdated since the tornadoes themselves happened decades ago anyway. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2023 (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.

The use of Newspapers for Rolling Forks conclusion

I usually get on here once in a blue moon, however I noticed something new, Rolling Forks inclusion as a possible EF5. While I don't inherently disagree with it's conclusion given estimates by Ethan Moriarty, the fact that a newspaper is cited as reasoning is a little wonky. The article is locked behind a physical paywall, but the actual author doesn't seem to have any background into meteorology. I can only assume that the reason why that comparison got made is that violent tornadoes slamming the larger towns in that county are really rare. I also feel like this opens up a can of worms as to what can be included. MariosWX (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm neutral about it, but I will note it was added as being mentioned as equivalent to F5 intensity (compared to 1971 F5), not EF5 intensity (needed to note that since no source has said it was EF5 intensity yet).

In all honesty, the list is and has been a can of worms. Between mid to late-2022, I attempted to hold several discussions (Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion) as to what can be used as a source for the list and what cannot. However, even after several notifications to editors and WP Weather talk page, and months of discussions, barely anyone participated. For instance, prior to these discussions, a self-published blog was used for several tornadoes on the list. Some were removed and some were kept, with the self-published blog being replaced with a better source. I have basically been told to not start anything that would be controversial in any way, so personally, I would say leave it for next year when maybe WP Weather would be willing to actually discuss and fix the dang list. It was clear that the months-long attempt I tried (which had 66 tornado discussions) couldn't really fix it. During that time, there was also several discussions out of that list area about tornadoes on the list and sources in general. So, like I was told, it might be wise to just not open another WP Weather can-of-worms discussion for a few months. Maybe 2024, we can try again to fix the list? Who knows. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Add additional details to the 2011 Smithville, Mississippi tornado

Possibly adding the detail of a homes foundation being partially uplifted. As well as the extreme ground scouring. Pepsi man334 (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of the 2016 Ensign EF2

Hey Алексеев Н., I do not think the 2016 Ensign EF2 should be included on the list. That NCEI reference doesn't even mention "EF5" and just says, Visually this tornado appeared to be much stronger, perhaps strong enough to produce EF4 damage, not EF5 damage. I suggest we remove it unless you have some other source that mentions "EF5" or something equivalent. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, i agree. Алексеев Н. (talk) 13:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The 2020 Sandy Hook - Purvis EF4

Hello. I'm more experienced now, so i entered into this page talk. I found a good candidate for an Possible EF5 damage list, the April 19, 2020 Sandy Hook, Mississippi EF4 tornado. This tornado obliterated an anchor-bolted home and debarked trees in nearby field across the road. However, the higher rating wasn't applied due to the foundation that was not swept clean and debris wasn't strewn far away. This was a note from NWS surveyors, which is means that this tornado has suspected by surveyors to be EF5. Алексеев Н. (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. The fact that the foundation was not swept clean is specific evidence against an EF5 rating. That tornado should not be added here. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hollister tornado

Making a note here to clear up any confusion. I think everybody agrees that the Hollister tornado near the KFDR radar on April 30 was much stronger over a rural area. However, winds estimated by traditional radar cannot be used as the basis for adding a tornado to this list. Winds from a traditional radar are not reliable estimates of strength in and of themselves. This list is for tornadoes that have concrete evidence they may have been EF5 strength, such as a ratings dispute among experts or mobile radar (DOW, RaXPol). wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 20:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: While the Greenwood Springs tornado is listed, the discussion about radar imagery is supplemental, not the main focus. The main focus is on the observed tree damage that tornado caused. In fact, that paper notes the problem with inferring strength based on radar winds: "This study highlights some of the challenges in relating tornado intensity to radar observations and in assessing tornado damage intensity, particularly once substantial debris has been lofted into the vortex. While close-range observations from the GWX radar exist, comparison of the radar observations to tree damage is complicated by the fact that the radar-inferred vertical wind profile of the tornado differed substantially from the observed peak-intensity damage, despite some of the radar observations being collected at an estimated mean beam height below 50 m ARL." Tucker is not stating in his tweet that this is a potential EF5, just that radar has very strong winds aloft. Please undo your edit. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah here is the discussion. Hollister was noted, by RS media, that NEXRAD did measure a gate-to-gate of about 260 mph. The rating isn't disputed, but it passed the 201 mph criteria we unintendedly set for the possible EF5-intensity list, as long as reliable source(s) mention it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

The gate-to-gate measurement was not surface level, NEXRAD is not a reliable indicator of possible EF5 strength, and multiple tornadoes every year pass that threshold in NEXRAD radar. They are not worthy of addition here. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

DOW measurements are not surface level. I was edit-conflicted while typing this, but to note, Hollisters NEXRAD measurement was stronger & closer to the surface than Harlan's DOW measurements days earlier. This is a circumstance were RS stated a tornado had X winds measured by radar at X height, which happens to be stronger and faster than other radar measurements on the list days earlier and years earlier. There is no difference. I will tell you why other NEXRAD-measured 201+ mph wind tornadoes are not on this list: RS do not mention them as being 201+ mph on radar. If NEXRAD isn't allowed, then we need to remove all radar-based additions by RS, since NEXRAD and DOW are both U.S.-based radars. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:48, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, I just found an article from KLAW talking about the Hollister tornado. "Meteorologist Eric Graves stated that based on these tornadoes, the EF scale needs to be amended to not just measure based on damage. They stated that "one of the most powerful tornadoes on Earth occurred just east of Hollister, Oklahoma."" Debate solved as we have further RS talking about the 260 mph gate-to-gate winds & a meteorologist saying it was one of the strongest tornadoes ever. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Debate is not solved. The list's criteria is purposely stringent to avoid situations like this where any random meteorologist can make a claim that X tornado was the strongest on record. The criteria for this page, as listed on the page, is specifically a) The US Government, b) DOW, c) tornado experts, or d) meteorological research institutions. Meteorologist Eric Graves, storm chaser Adam Lucio, or TV met Tucker Antico do not fit that criteria. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 21:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

To reiterate: Meteorologists, subject-experts in the field of meteorology, state on a secondary reliable source that a tornado was measured by NEXRAD, a government owned and operated radar, to have winds measured in the EF5-range & that it was one of the strongest tornadoes of all time. Yeah, no. Your reasoning does not make sense to remove it. If you want to be a stickler for the "rules", then I would say WP:IAR and listen to Wikipedia verifiability policy over "rules" which have yet to actually consensus, since my last 2-attempts to get a consensus ended with almost no participation, which could even be interpreted as a silent consensus. But still, no clear consensus. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:01, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You are attempting to add a tornado based on a method the National Weather Service does not consider an accurate way to rate tornado intensity, even though they own and operate that said radar. That overrides whatever commentary a local television meteorologist has to say. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

My turn to ask now: What is your direct source, from the National Weather Service, indicating NEXRAD is unreliable. Since you do not consider RS to be viable for comments, I will not consider it either. Please send a .gov source from NWS saying NEXRAD is unreliable, otherwise your whole statement and reasoning, to me at least, will be based on original research and will be, as far as I am concerned, invalid on Wikipedia for this discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 23:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Tornado was confirmed by the NWS to be 300+ MPH estimate, if NWS isn't a reliable source I don't know what is MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

No, this is not a thing that happened lol. What was confirmed by NWS Norman: "This tornado produced EF1 damage, although it was likely much stronger. The tornado was first observed by a storm chaser around 932 pm. The tornado moved east through very rural areas producing occasional power pole, tree and outbuilding damage. The tornado turned northeast and damaged two farmsteads about 6 miles east- northeast of Hollister. The tornado then turned west-northwest and dissipated about two miles northeast of where it began." wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Possible EF5 Intensity. The keyword here is intensity, we're talking about wind, not damage. This tornado was a major disappointment in terms of damage, but wind speed wise, it was insane. There is NEXRAD radar of that thing looking like a hurricane because of how strong the rotation is, pulling in the things around it. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Also confirmed 260+ mph wind speeds, aka an EF5 of n terms of speed, not damage MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I am aware. We are still attempting to draw some invisible line from "it was likely much stronger" to being a worthy addition to this page, however. That line does not exist. It could have been EF2, EF3, or EF4 intensity as well. We will never know. The Robert Lee tornado on May 3 had an equally impressive presentation on radar with an eye (I tracked both). That one was just assigned EF1 intensity as well. This page is not a source of rampant speculation about what strength a tornado could have been based on NEXRAD radar. It would spiral out of control with how many extreme signatures we see on conventional radar each year, many of which have winds well above 200 mph aloft. Winds aloft is not how tornadoes are rated though. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 22:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

You have a good point. Also yea, tracking this thing live was absolutely insane, it looked like Hurricane Katrina just randomly popped up on my radar and had the weirdest movements I've ever seen MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is Eric Graves and why do I care what they have to say about a tornado in Oklahoma? Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Who are you and why do I care what you have to say on Wikipedia? They are a meteorologist quoted by a secondary reliable source. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

They are literally a meteorologist. Just like James Spann, who I'm sure you'd say is reliable. MemeGod ._. (My talk page, my contributions and my creations!) 22:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@MemeGod27 I may trust James Spann, but he's no reason to add a tornado to this list, and nor is any Tom, Dick, or Harry with a meteorology degree. There are specific criteria for adding a tornado to this list, and unfortunately none of them are met for this tornado. And @WeatherWriter, I would urge you to not let this become personal. Maybe take a breath and step away for a while. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC

Nah, no need for a step back. Discussion is over anyway with a clear consensus to exclude it. So, now officially per consensus: No tornado may be added to the list if the statement of possible EF5 intensity comes from NEXRAD data, including if this statement comes from a meteorologist. Effective per community consensus, NEXRAD-measured EF5 intensity tornadoes are prohibited from the list. There, that is exactly what the community consensus has determined and I stated it. Even if NWS themselves stated NEXRAD measured EF5 winds, we shall not add it per this consensus, because, as several people have stated, NEXRAD is not reliable whatsoever, therefore, any statements would automatically bring into question the clear community consensus that NEXRAD should not be involved on this list. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Again you have demonstrated the behavior of unilaterally supporting one side of an argument only to have consensus form against you and then proceed to drastically swing all the way to the other side with unnecessary drastic statements and actions. This has been repeated behavior out of you in discussions and this type of behavior has no place on Wikipedia. United States Man (talk) 02:35, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

So what? You want me to remain in opposition, despite me understanding there is a consensus against my idea and proposal? Seriously, I just stated the discussion/debate was over and that I conceded. I am now dropping out and backing away from the discussion, as there is a consensus. Do I still think I am right? Yes, absolutely. However, consensus trumps my idea. No sir, I did not "switch sides". I simply conceded. Please do not focus on me and focus on the content. You trying to bring my actions into this to twist it is wrong. Now, I am dropping this and shall be unsubscribing from the discussion so I will no longer receive notifications regarding it and I do not wish to be pinged in here. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

• One last comment: I really do need to learn to not try to make unilateral comments or rationales. I have struckthrough my statement below. As far as I am concerned, there is a consensus to exclude the Hollister tornado, however concensus can change. I am out of this discussion now. Peace y'all! Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Sections like these run the risk of being rife with speculation. We really should be limiting entries in this section to high-quality secondary analyses of quality-controlled data published in reliable sources (with largely unassailable repute, such as established academic journal) that explicitly refer to tornadic intensity exceeding the EF5 threshold, rather than speculative commentary on preliminary data readouts. The onus is on reliable sources to make the rigorous assessment that some tornado is potentially EF5 intensity, not us. I agree with wxtrackercody in affirming the stringent criteria § Possible F5/EF5 intensity demands, and none of the sources raised thus far rise to the level of supporting the inclusion of the Hollister tornado in this list. —TheAustinMan^{(Talk ⬩ Edits)} 23:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

We never actually set the criteria for the list. Last time I tried, it gathered nearly no actual responses. We probably should hold a discussion to set the criteria for the list once and for all though. Clearly, it isn't the basic Wikipedia policy (since WP:RS alone isn't valid), so we need a discussion similar to what set WP:TornadoCriteria to se this criteria. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment – A little late but just wanted to add my opposition to this inclusion and any similar on the grounds of radar not being an accurate nor reliable way to estimate tornado intensity, partially due to the science of the near-surface environment not always correlating mesocyclone strength to a tornado. Mesocyclone sampled by radar does not equal tornado intensity. United States Man (talk) 02:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)