![]() | 2011 Joplin tornado was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former good article nominee |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of May_2011_tornado_outbreak was copied or moved into 2011 Joplin tornado with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
i think this might need to be moved to the casualties section. i doesnt seem like a discription of damage to me. Spcgettel (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
"The United States Congress debated whether to supply a special-purpose, $1 billion federal aid package for Joplin, ensuring that existing budget funds for FEMA and other federal agencies involved in disaster relief would not be exhausted during the fiscal year. Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated that an aid package would only be permissible if supported by budget cuts elsewhere. Congressional Republicans correspondingly proposed a $1.5 billion cut to an existing loan program intended to promote fuel-efficient vehicles.[21]"
While there is truth to that, and it is backed up with an article, it still sounds very biased, one-sided, and an attack on the Republicans in Congress. It is the way that it is worded that is the problem. It sounds like a Democrat wrote that to try to make the Republican in Congress look evil and uncaring.Bjoh249 (talk) 13:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
...But it's the truth. If a Democrat had done such a thing, I'm sure it would be stated... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.121.162 (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but why does it even have to be in there?? Why just not say the government provided aide like in all disasters. That sounds like personal rip on the Republican party by a Democrat.Bjoh249 (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Because the government isn't providing aid yet, and that's why. It's not a rip, its a fact that relates to the disaster in Joplin. As much as i hate politicizing disasters, by democrats or republicans, I think this is a significant event in the recovery, that i believe it shoudln't be changed. 24.101.121.162 (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
The tone is far from neutral. Include date of Congressional funding provisions and amount, date and location of Presidential visit. Everything else (inclusion of Congressional budget debate without current fiscal context, President Obama's cancelled trip) is at best surplusage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.134.208.112 (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html if legal to do so the satellite image of the joplin storm on this linked page (from noaa) would be nice to include. 71.13.140.152 (talk) 23:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
So I've noticed that when one clicks on the tornado rating link in the 'tornado box' section of a number of the recent disasters, one is directed to the original Fujita Scale, not the Enhanced. I do not know how to fix that in the boxes; could someone either instruct me how, or fix it themselves please? Thx Snideology (talk) 00:01, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
There is a map of the swath of damage available at the Jasper County GIS site, click on the Map tab if anybody wants to make a sketch and upload it to the Commons, or describe it in words ("From 13th to 32nd Streets north-south and S Even to S Kemser Rd east-west..."). Abductive (reasoning) 01:42, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
What is the definitive official source address for this tornado's rating? -Mardus (talk) 09:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
In one para, the EF4 rating is said to be low-end, the other says it's high-end EF and both refer to the same source. Which is it, then? -Mardus (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe this is a free image we can use. [1] Not sure about the other sizes. - 74.32.172.66 (talk) 14:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I notice that there is no article that covers the May 1971 tornado that struck Joplin, killing one person and doing millions in damage. There are excellent resources available (many like this one online) and interest in the subject is certainly high right now. While the single tornado might not rate an article, the outbreak of which it was a part certainly should. - Dravecky (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
It would seem in my opinion that the damage to the hospital in Joplin is significant enough to warrant a picture on the site for this tornado if not it's own section as well. 71.13.140.152 (talk) 17:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
the info box appears to be broken 71.13.140.152 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
at least 123 people were killed and more than 1,150 were injured in Joplin, a number that is likely to rise.[11][12][13] This would make it the deadliest U.S. tornado since April 9, 1947 in Woodward, Oklahoma, and the eighth deadliest tornado in U.S. history.[14] This would also make it the first single tornado since the June 8, 1953 tornado in Flint, Michigan, to have 100 or more associated fatalities.[15]
Two glaring inconsistencies:
1. The Wikipedia home page link that leads to this article states that the casualty rate is at least 117. The article itself states that it's at least 123.
2. The Wikipedia home page link that leads to this article states that it's the deadliest tornado since 1936. The article itself state that it's the deadliest tornado since 1947. Minaker (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
There still remains some debate over the 1947 tornado. Some sources indicate that the 1947 tornado was not actually one tornado, but multiple tornadoes. As our article says, "The event was similar to the Tri-State Tornado two decades before, in that it appeared to observers to be a single, very long-lived tornado. Later analysis suggests that it was a multiple-tornado outbreak." Indeed, the article title and the plural nouns in the body go along with the suggestion that that was a multiple-tornado event. In that case, the Joplin tornado would be the deadliest single tornado since 1936, a point supported by a number of sources (unfortunately in the same way the 1947 date is). -- tariqabjotu 16:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it be a good idea to create a list of the casulties in a subarticle?KeeperOfTheInformation (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
This article claims that it has since been discovered that the receipt did not indeed travel this distance through the atmosphere. Purdue University made the following statement...
"The receipt from a Joplin, Mo., tire store that made its way to Indiana was not deposited by the May 22 tornado. Upon further investigation another explanation was discovered. The receipt was left by a visiting relative who later recalled the Joplin purchase."[1]
--greek lamb (talk) 11:16, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
References
As of 11pm Sunday, The Missouri Department of Public Safety reported 101 confirmed dead. video. Green Cardamom (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone have information on what advance warning was given and when? This would be a useful addition to the article. --Crunch (talk) 13:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
In Riverton, KS they reported a funnel cloud at 5:25. Nine minutes later, at 5:34, there was another funnel reported in Galena, KS. The NWS in Springfield issued a Tornado Warning at 5:17pm for the greater Joplin area. I don't have the link to the actual warning though. 24.101.121.162 (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Quote from Reuters article:
http://www.dps.mo.gov/news/template.asp?ID=N01110019
--70.166.133.138 (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
The name of the policeman Jeff Taylor killed in the relief effort when struck by lightning was deleted here. I understand the logic of not wanting to include casualties. However, Taylor got among the most publicity http://www.google.com/search?q=Riverside+Police&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&client=firefox-a&rlz=1R1GGHP_en___US432#sclient=psy&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=R5W&rlz=1R1GGHP_en___US432&biw=1366&bih=568&source=hp&q=Riverside+Policeman+Joplin&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=711da0863f755a publicity of any individual killed in the tornado or its follow up]. Flags across the state were lowered to half mast by governor order.Americasroof (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Just FYI, local news ([3] and [4]) are reporting that more have died in hospitals, leading to a new death toll of 151. I would like to wait for more information before changing it in the article however. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 00:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In looking at the history of this article, I don't see anybody else from Missouri actively editing here. Is there anybody out there?Americasroof (talk) 19:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
While this obviously cannot be cited, I was in the apartment complex behind/east of the Wal-Mart (Plaza), in the southern most block of apartments, the ones closest to the EF-5 center (37°04′16″N 94°28′11″W / 37.071004°N 94.469794°W). While retrieving belongings I ran into a NOAA engineer (who I'm pretty sure was very real, e.g. he knew exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned a rare EF-4 in College Park, Maryland) who off the cuff (based on e.g. the bolts that gave way in the cell towers that bracketed my apartment stack) said that my block got hit by 100-120 mph winds and that the way above minimum EF-5 center was to the south ...maybe starting 500 feet at 20th Street. Based on extensive direct observation of this area I can say with fair confidence that the Home Depot and adjacent buildings got hit a lot worse than the Wal-Mart and Academy Sports big boxes to its north.
With tornadoes we're talking about situations where 500 feet can make all the difference in the world, e.g. if the center had been perhaps 500 feet to the north I very possibly wouldn't be typing this, according to that NOAA engineer who said my concrete shell apartment would have been flattened at best. So I'd say the criticism of tilt-up may be valid but comparisons of the Home Depot to the other two big box stores that got hit less worse are invalid. E.g. plenty of smaller concrete block construction buildings in the Home Depot zone were totally flattened at best (when I say "at best", a whole lot of high velocity debris were thrown around; I can provide high quality CC OK pictures of them and their effects taken by my brother with his Nikon DSLR if so desired, and some of the area around there). Hga (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
It looks good to me just from reading it, but before I even start actually reviewing I'm of the opinion that this nomination is premature given that NCDC Storm Data hasn't yet come out for May, meaning we don't have the final, official data on the tornado. I'm inclined to fail this for now due to that with renomination being recommended after shoring up the article with information/referencing from Storm Data when available, but I'll wait for a second opinion in case another reviewer thinks this article is complete without the Storm Data. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 21:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I just added an item about insurance payouts and Missouri history. The sources say the earlier record was a 2000 hail storm. That is clearly a mistake. The big hail storm billed as the costliest in history was on April 10, 2001. I included the NOAA report. It probably needs a wiki article.Americasroof (talk) 19:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The news articles cited by this article put the death toll of this tornado at 159, but as of August 10 the SPC lists the fatalities at 157. Should this article be changed to fit this? I would generally consider it the SPC be a more authoritative source than most news articles IMHO and this update is more recent than the latest revision of the dead toll in this article. TornadoLGS (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this from the SPC which puts the cost of damage at $2.8 billion. Should this be put as the new damage total? It's pretty close to the early estimates f $3 billion. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Stcofire made this edit summary about a later reverted edit of his, "I was in this Walmart when the tornado destroyed it. The walls of Walmart and nearby Academy Sports also blown over and blown out. The walls hit by the tornado Did Not 'survive'."
Well, for the Wal-Mart judge for yourself: below the pictures headlined "Blown Away: The remains of this apartment block..." (which just happens to be my once and future apartment complex) you'll see pictures of first the Home Depot and then the Wal-Mart: "Wiped off the map: Shocking before and after images reveal how giant tornado ripped apart Joplin's city landmarks".
Note how for the Wal-Mart the right most, northern most, furthermost away from the tornado section (the grocery one) survived fairly intact. It has most of its roof, the rear walls (which among other things for a while prompted me to think the whole store hadn't been hit that hard since I could only see it from the back) and as I recall more than a little intact wall on the north side and in front. Next look at the Home Depot, where most of its outer tilt-up walls are fairly intact ... unfortunately all but a few flat on the ground.
But see above my comments in the "Home Depot vs. the other 2 big box stores" section. The Home Depot was in the south of the zone of totally red, "Catastrophic Destruction" while the Wal-Mart was just beyond that (I'm going by the older picture from the Army Corps of Engineers which is overlaid on a street map, look at the history of the article photo titled "US Army Corps of Engineers map showing the extent of damage"). Wal-Mart lucked out due to location more than anything else, and that's the rule rather than the exception in strong tornadoes.
For a bit more uncitable local and related reporting: just yesterday morning I was in the rebuilt Wal-Mart and my cashier said she was there that evening. She ran for it when the roof started peeling off, was obviously very frightened by the experience but said the worst part was afterwords, how all the babies were silent. Many feared they were dead, but I guess they have some sort of hardwired instinct to be quiet in nasty situations, all these who made it to something that became sort of an interior shelter area were alive and well. She said only 5 people died in the store; I've read that more died in the parking lot and as I recall more than 200 people were in the store when the tornado hit. Hga (talk) 20:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
A couple weeks ago I exchanged emails with Greg Carbin at the SPC regarding the death toll of this tornado. I had asked why the death toll in the annual fatal tornado summaries was changed from 159 to 158 as the text towards the end of 2011 said "1 direct fatality was removed..." In his reply Carbin said that there never was a 159th direct fatality, as that death was not a direct result of the tornado. The figure given by the SPC indicates that the other fatalities over 158 were were not directly due to the tornado either. So should we change the death toll listed here to reflect this? Also, different death tolls for this tornado are listed on different articles. Whatever figure we settle on for the death toll of this tornado should be applied to all articles that list it. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
"The insurance payout is expected to be $2.2 billion;" -- should this be "The insurance payout was"? VoltageX (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
the Adjusted Damage cost of the tornado right now shows 2906 in the list but it should be 2907 as shown here http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/damage$.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.118.207.158 (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This page is very good, but I note that it does not include any discussion of controversial decision of many residents to ignore the sirens that were blown 20 minutes before calamity struck, as discussed artciels such as this one from Reuters:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-joplin-tornado-report-idUSTRE78J6TJ20110920
How can we incorporate this aspect of the tragedy into the article? It is significant enough, and has many sources that meet Wikipedia's standards.TH1980 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Both during the tornado and within minutes thereafter, the people of Joplin sprung into action, helping one another take shelter until the storm passed, while providing emergency first aid immediately thereafter. Three friends arrived on scene the next day with their camping and construction equipment, and said that while first responders, National Guard troops, and rescue teams were present, the overwhelming percentage of people out there helping others came from the 50,000 citizens of Joplin, Missouri itself, along with thousands of others from both in-state and other states who descended on Joplin to help them. Most of what I see online hail the efforts of the state government, the Highway Patrol, National Guard, and federal efforts as the ONLY response, as if the people of Joplin were somehow pathetically helpless and utterly reliant on the government. Nothing could be further from the truth! News broadcasters on the scene captured hundreds of hours of footage showing by a factor of greater than 10 to 1, it was We the People who were doing most of the work. My friends reported they rarely saw the government efforts, that the vast majority of the response was people helping people, whether caring for the injured, erecting temporary shelters, or beginning the long process of clearing the rubble and debris. Thus, the Response section needs a lot of work! It needs to accurately reflect what a well-prepared, "can do!" community can do in the face of disaster.Clepsydrae (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
~The tornado-attack appeared in Monsters and Mysteries in America, which documented some survivor's experiences of being saved by the mythical Butterfly people.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.6.124 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2011 Joplin tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 Joplin tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2011 Joplin tornado. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
((dead link))
tag to http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110602/ap_on_re_us/us_joplin_tornado_death_tollWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check))
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
It seems that most of the edits made to this article in the past few months have either been vandalism or undoing vandalism. Seems to me that semi-protection may be warranted. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
In the main article, it talks of winds exceeding 200 mph inside the vortex of the Joplin tornado when it talks of the structural deformation of St. John's Hospital and parking stops torn from parking lots. I personally think that only winds of absolutely no less than 315 mph could have done that kind of damage, especially to St. John's Hospital. Darthvader1 (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
I kind of agree with on the "Butterfly People" thing @United States Man: that it doesn't belong in its own article and likely doesn't belong here. Notability is questionable and it sounds like a bunch of woo-y nonsense to me, though I understand that my personal skepticism about such things , on its own, wouldn't be grounds to remove it. If there is a page on purported supernatural occurrences surrounding disasters, that might be a better place for it. TornadoLGS (talk) 18:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Where was the fastrip? G23M08 (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
It says in 2023 USD, it would be 3.64 billion dollars, but should actually show 3.69 billion dollars. Tornadoesarecool13 (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2023 (UTC)