Talk:List of F4, EF4, and IF4 tornadoes

Issue with Grazulis

I realize that one issue with pre-1950 tornadoes in the U.S. is that most of them were rated by Grazulis. Honestly, I would rather not have the same reference repeated hundreds of times. I was thinking, instead of instead citing him at the bottom of each table where we include his material. This would be similar to the format we used for tables on outbreak pages before 2013. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

With how many he did before 1950, I agree that the pre 2013 chart format would be best, just without the rating column. Elijahandskip (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay. I'll take care of that. I'm part way through finishing off 1880 and 1881. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

2017 China Triple EF4

How should the fatalities/injuries be listed for the three EF4s in China during 2017. The source combined the fatalities and injuries between the three consecutive EF4s, so should it just be listed on all three with a note or some other way? @TornadoLGS:, United States Man, ChessEric, TornadoInformation12. Elijahandskip (talk) 05:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

If the source is not clear on how many people were killed by each tornado, then we can only say how many people died from the event as a whole. Maybe put a 3 with an asterisk for the first one. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

You can also take a look at the entries for March 20, 1875 as an example, since there is at least one instance where it is unclear which of two tornadoes caused some of the deaths. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do so I'll go with TornadoLGS on this one. ChessEric (talk · contribs) 00:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

1851 Sicily tornadoes

Is there a source for an F4 rating for the 1851 Sicily tornadoes? I can only see one of the two sources, which does not seem to say anything about a rating. Both sources are also present at the article for this event, but no rating is mentioned there. I can see that Elijahandskip added the entry, so where did you get the rating info? TornadoLGS (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I just doubled checked. I guess that might have been an accidental addition since I swear I saw it on ESWD, but when I just went to double check, ESWD doesn’t even have the tornadoes documented. Weird. I really don’t remember when I saw it (or even if I really did see it) since ESWD nor the two sources in the article have a rating mentioned. I guess we should remove that. Good catch! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: It might have been removed. There was another tornado on Wikipedia (I forget which one) with a reference to ESWD, but I couldn't find it there when I checked the date. TornadoLGS (talk)

I’m friends with one of the ESWD documenters, so I can ask them to take a look at the reversion history of that date so we can know if it was removed. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

2023 Kingston tornado

What's wrong with adding the 2023 Kingston tornado to the possible EF4 list? I see nothing wrong with it; it had a reference that I checked, and the NWS literally said what was said in the tornado description. Pinging Elijah and United States Man to make their arguments here.

@Elijahandskip and United States Man: Poodle23 (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't a possible EF4. I don't know what reference you have. The survey makes vague reference to possible higher wind speeds, but it would be 150 vs. 160. Stop wishcasting tornadoes to have higher ratings. Don't make a mockery of this page right off the bat. United States Man (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

It is almost the exact same style of wording which got the Mayfield tornado added to the list of possible F5/EF5s. NWS point blank said, “Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” The 2021 WK tornado’s addition to the F5/EF5 list was, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered…” They are almost identical in their meaning, so yeah, this should be on the possible F4/EF4 list. Elijahandskip (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RfC about if the 2023 Kingston tornado qualifies as a possible EF4

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.

---

Does the Old Kingston–Titus–Equality–Lake Martin–Penton, Alabama EF3 tornado on January 12, 2023 qualify for the article’s list of possible F4/EF4 tornadoes with no official rating or lower rating?

• Option 1 — Yes, it qualifies for the list of possible F4 and EF4 tornadoes.
• Option 2 — No, it does not qualify for the list of possible F4 and EF4 tornadoes.

Elijahandskip (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Option 1 — I believe it qualifies for the list. The National Weather Service said the following in the damage survey from the tornado: “Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” Last year, it was determined a similarly worded statement was a viable reason for the addition of the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado to the list of list of possible F5/EF5/T10+ tornadoes officially rated F4/EF4/T9 or lower. The statement was, “the tornado damage rating might have been higher had more wind resistant structures been encountered…” Since the ideology is the same between them, aka higher intensity tornado that did not hit a structure worthy of a higher rating, the tornado qualifies for the list. Elijahandskip (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 — While I normally look at the logic of previously included tornadoes and the wording used by the official NWS statements and that would seem to imply that the tornado may have been of a higher rating, the wording here includes that the "winds were stronger". In cases like the 2014 Mayflower EF4, or the Rochelle-Fairdale EF4 in 2015, in both cases the wording included that a "higher rating" may have been needed had the tornado struck more structurally sound structures upon which to inflict the damage. Both were rated as high-end EF4's. As this tornado was rated at a mid-range EF3, the wording "higher winds" does not necessarily imply that these higher winds would have warranted a higher rating (like, EF3 to EF4) had the tornado struck more solid structures, but rather a re-evaluation of its current rating, like assessing it a high-end EF3, for example. Because of that ambiguity in the descriptions, I lean towards the latter option. Mjeims (talk) 17:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 - Almost certainly an EF4 in reality, but "it is plausible that winds were stronger" can mean 160 mph vs. 150 mph, not necessarily EF4. wxtrackercody (talk · contributions) 18:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Just an extra comment: If it was just that statement, I would agree with you. However, the exact next sentence says “However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating.” NWS mentions that they were held back on the “rating”, not just the possibility of higher winds. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

”Rating” means wind speeds in this case. United States Man (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Sounds a little like WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEELIJAHANDSKIP. Poodle23 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 1 Full wording says this: Based on the damage scene and contextual evidence, it is plausible that winds were stronger. However, with only manufactured homes in the path, there appear to be no damage indicators that will allow a higher rating. It doesn't just talk about higher winds, it also says "higher rating" which means it could be a possible EF4. A few people here use the "150 vs 160 mph" argument, but I believe it is false due to the actual wording. Poodle23 (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC
• Option 2 Find a reliable source that directly speculates that the tornado was an EF4, otherwise its not our job to speculate about what higher rating and higher winds may mean. After all we wouldn't speculate that something was a Category 4 tropical cyclone on wiki, unless we had a reliable source telling us it was a Cat 4.Jason Rees (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 – per Jason Rees and Cody, in addition to arguments I’ve made against this before. No source explicitly states this was possibly an EF4, because it wasn’t. Elijahandskip’s wishcasting with these “possible lists” over and over isn’t helping the cause. United States Man (talk) 21:56, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

As a personal request, I would like you to stop saying I am “wishcasting” as I am not. I am just trying to repair and create lists, with community feedback and consensus, which you yourself said were a “sham”. Please focus on the content rather than the editor. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me that you are going through every possible online source, looking and looking for the slightest sentence or statement in order to try to add something to these lists. That isn’t useful nor helpful. The fact is that very very few tornadoes actually have concrete written evidence that they could be higher on the scale. United States Man (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• Option 2 ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 (invited by the bot) Even with the extra latitude given by the squishy title ("possible")(which makes my thought not a slam-dunk) I think that the inclusion criteria would be a source that mentions EF4 et al as a possibility rather than an editor deriving it from a source. North8000 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Per United States Man and North8000. Penitentes (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 I think this is really getting into WP:SYNTH territory. Especially since the estimated winds of 150 mph are only mid-EF3 and we have the whole 155-165 mph range that could qualify this tornado as "stronger" without bumping it up to EF4. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Option 2 Summoned by bot. The article says we need "photographic analysis and eyewitness accounts", or other "evidence pointing to an F4/EF4 or equivalent rating". I don't see that here. STEMinfo (talk) 21:55, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

@STEMinfo: I will note that is for tornadoes prior to 1950, since there is no official ratings for those in the US. There is a similar section on the List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes, which in all honesty, should be on this article. This article was created last year, with the other one (F5/EF5s) was created many years ago. Not saying you are wrong at all, but the need for “photographic analysis and eyewitness accounts” is more on the line of WP:OR (not your comment, the section wording that is), so the wording for the section should probably be changed to reflect it’s F5/EF5 counterpart. Food for thought in the future I guess. Elijahandskip (talk) 22:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's hard for bot-summoned laymen to understand what's original research or not, but if the wording is misleading, it should be fixed. STEMinfo (talk) 22:44, 24 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.

1990 Mobara tornado

I wonder if there are any photographs of the F4 damage from that tornado and what was the reason why JMA went to the F3 rating for that tornado Alvaro Ivan Daniswara 2017 (talk) 07:07, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

March 21 2013 Mulwala tornado

I couldn't help but notice that it was only officially rated as an F3 by BOM. I can't find any official sources rating it as an ef/f4. Woodsy104 (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Disputed F5/EF5 ratings

So a little thought. We have a section for unofficial F4/EF4 tornadoes either rated F3/EF3 or lower or with no official rating. Should we also, in some capacity, include tornadoes with disputed F5/EF5 ratings? TornadoLGS (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Cumberland IN/Greenfield IN EF4 - June 11, 1998

I was doing research on Hancock County (Indiana) tornadoes and the first thing I saw on the NOAA/NWS website was an F4 that struck Cumberland and Greenfield (it just says Greenfield on the NWS website) in June of 1998. Living in Greenfield, I got curious and dug deeper. According to Courier & Press, it says "A tornado initially touched down on Indianapolis' far east side in Cumberland destroying six buildings and damaging nearly eighty. The tornado continued east-northeast into Hancock County before dissipating just east of Maxwell at 640 PM EST. In Hancock County, the tornado destroyed approximately five buildings and damaged nearly 40 others. The supercell storm that generated this tornado also produced three other tornadoes in east central Indiana that evening." If somebody could research this as well and potentially consider adding it, that would be great. Please and thanks. RIballer19 (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

New Wren, Houston, Mississippi EF3 Tornado,

There is no explanation for this tornado. We already know it had violent intensity. *edit* not 100%Colin777724 (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

@Colin777724: Do you have a source indicating it was violent/EF4 intensity? If so, it can probably be added! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 04:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.tornadotalk.com/patreon-only/?redirect_to=%2Fanchor-okolona-chapel-grove-wren-ms-ef3-tornado-april-27-2011%2F Tornado talk his it. But it is for Patreon users. Colin777724 (talk) 06:53, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunatly, following a discussion (WP:TornadoTalk), Tornado Talk is now considered an unreliable source for information on Wikipedia. Do you have any other source besides Tornado Talk? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:18, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, wiki has become even more unreliable and the school tried warning us. I had a talk with the tornado talk discord server 2 weeks ago. And they pointed out some information that proves that tornado talk is even more reliable than Wiki. If you want proof let me know. Colin777724 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Colin777724: Just so you are aware, most things are more reliable than Wikipedia. In fact, according to the list of discussed reliable sources, Wikipedia itself is considered an unreliable source for information (see WP:RSPWP; shortcut link to it): Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source because open wikis are self-published sources. This includes articles, non-article pages, The Signpost, non-English Wikipedias, Wikipedia Books, and Wikipedia mirrors; see WP:CIRCULAR for guidance. Occasionally, inexperienced editors may unintentionally cite the Wikipedia article about a publication instead of the publication itself; in these cases, fix the citation instead of removing it. Although citing Wikipedia as a source is against policy, content can be copied between articles with proper attribution; see WP:COPYWITHIN for instructions." That is actually partially why Tornado Talk was also considered an unreliable source. Based on the discussion visible at WP:TornadoTalk (shortcut link to it) On several occasions, Tornado Talk cited Wikipedia. Specifically, Tornado Talk cited unreliable sources, and therefore, was also classified as an unreliable source. The citing of Wikipedia actually can lead to that circular citation effect described above.

For example, if Wikipedia has information on tornado "X". Then, Tornado Talk cites something from Wikipedia regarding tornado "X". If the Tornado Talk article is then cited in the Wikipedia article for that exact information, Wikipedia is literally citing itself for the source. That, along with the fact anyone can edit Wikipedia, is why it is not considered a reliable source for information.

Since Tornado Talk also cited Wikipedia on numerous occasions (the discussion found at least 10 times), there are at least 10 articles by Tornado Talk that could lead to the circular effect.

Hopefully that better explains some on why Tornado Talk was considered "generally unreliable". That does not mean it is fully unreliable. I will point out that specifically, citing Tornado Talk is not prohibited on Wikipedia. In fact, you can. "Generally unreliable" on Wikipedia specifically means: "Editors show consensus that the source is questionable in most cases. The source may lack an editorial team, have a poor reputation for fact-checking, fail to correct errors, be self-published, or present user-generated content. Outside exceptional circumstances, the source should normally not be used, and it should never be used for information about a living person. Even in cases where the source may be valid, it is usually better to find a more reliable source instead. If no such source exists, that may suggest that the information is inaccurate. The source may still be used for uncontroversial self-descriptions, and self-published or user-generated content authored by established subject-matter experts is also acceptable." (WP:GUNREL). That is why I asked the question on if you had some other source indicating anything that Tornado Talk said regarding the New Wren tornado. That would help show that the Tornado Talk article is actually a valid source in this case.

The classification is very generic, and is more just a caution to other editors, in Tornado Talk's case, most regarding the chance of a circular effect starting. Nothing, so far, as indicated Tornado Talk is inaccurate, just they may not be the best source to just use. So, if you have any (and I really do mean any) other source indicating the New Wren tornado was stronger intensity (EF4 or EF5), please mention it here. If you do, then I would feel confident enough to say the Tornado Talk article regarding the New Wren tornado could be reliable enough. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Wait who are you again? I do not know anything about you, are you like apart of the NWS? And how old are you? Because if you are being serious, than you should probably talk to Jen about this. Colin777724 (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS@Elijahandskip@ChessEric @United States Man ima need some back up Colin777724 (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

1. I agree with WeatherWriter. 2. You asked Elijahandskip for “back up”, but that user is now WeatherWriter, so that obviously won’t help you. 3. Canvassing certain users for support has gotten this wikiproject in trouble before and is against policy. 4. TornadoLGS and ChessEric aren’t likely to agree with you either. United States Man (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

I second US Man. I wasn’t around for the TornadoTalk discussion, but I trust that what was said there provided ample reason for why it is not a reliable source. It may mean that articles about older tornadoes and tornado outbreaks may need to be updated to reflect this, but that’s another story. Plus, canvassing to get a support and maintain the “status quo” is a BIG no-no. I should know: it was my antics that got this wikiproject into that trouble in February 2023. Lastly, Weather Writer, in my opinion, has become an EXTREMELY trustworthy editor in this project, and I have consulted and worked together with them dozens of times. However, regardless of whether you know someone or not AND regardless of whether they are in this wikiproject or not, you shouldn’t attack them like that. This may be a tightly knit group, but we can’t shutout other people from contributing, especially if they’re adding useful information. ChessEric 16:08, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

First, you pinging editors here is canvassing which has landed weather projects in trouble on more than one occasion. If I were inclined to agree with you, having been canvassed here would actually mean I should refrain from commenting. Second, I'm actually inclined to agree with Eric and USM on this matter. One being it's still a self-published source, which should generally be avoided. This goes double if, as WeatherWriter says, TornadoTalk cites Wikipedia. Third, a conversation on Discord doesn't really do anything for establishing reliability. Especially considering that it was a TornadoTalk server, which is basically saying that TornadoTalk is reliable according to itself. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Okay you are right, I definitely was on the defense of saying that tornado talk was reliable and should always be used for every wiki page. I am wrong and made a mistake, and I am sorry for causing this to occur. I do want to mention that, I did not know WeatherWriter was Elijah. I clearly am not an expert on research, but I should know better not to bring up drama on wiki with other weather wiki members. I will not cause this type of situation again and probably just debate about the ratings in Ryan’s server where he has a thread channel for Tornado ratings and damage. But again I am sorry for getting you 4 into this situation. Colin777724 (talk) 23:13, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

New Wren, Houston, Mississippi EF3 Tornado, (redo)

Lack of survey from this tornado. I could try and interview or ask the NWS in Memphis about it. Since they were the ones who surveyed it. Some sources have stated that this tornado was violent and had winds at either EF4 to EF5. There is good evidence to support the tornado being violent and given that it lofted a vehicle for over 90 seconds and traveled over 1.7 miles in the air. Generally those feats are only observable with the highest end tornadoes. I know other people agree that the tornado was violent, but from an official standpoint point, it just did not get the damage indicators that the NWS were surveying. And given that this tornado was one of hundreds that occurred on April 27th. In my opinion it was violent but it is not an official statement. So this one will be investigated until further notice. I know others are likely to do research as well. Let me know if anyone of you get any interesting evidence to support the claim that this tornado was indeed violent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin777724 (talk • contribs)

@Colin777724: First, I'd like to say, if you want to start a new discussion on a matter already discussed, just start a new discussion, do not delete previous discussions. Second, you mention there are sources indicating this was EF4+, but don't say what they are. Simply saying there are sources isn't worth much unless you actually provide them. Have you uncovered anything new since aside from Tornado Talk, which was brought up in the previous discussion? TornadoLGS (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

When I an not dealing with school work, I will but I have not so far. Colin777724 (talk) 23:23, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

I mean the cehcile being lofted for 90 seconds and traveling for 1.7 miles isn’t really considered to be possible with EF3 tornadoes from my knowledge, I mean has any tornado besides this one hurled a vehicle in a air for such a long duration while being only EF3 or lower? Colin777724 (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

While I personally think that would be an indicator that the tornado was stronger than EF3, just citing that as the reasoning for including it as EF4+ in this list would be WP:OR. To include it, we'd need a sufficiently reliable source explicitly saying it was or may have been EF4+. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:38, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Two Albion, Pennsylvania tornadoes???

I was just scrolling around, checking the page, and I saw the Albion, Pennsylvania tornado twice. One was even in the 1990s F4 tornadoes! This was really annoying, but I am hesitating to edit this for some reason. JTCTheEditor (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

F4/IF4 from 1970-1990 Article missing

i need a list of tornadoes for F4/IF4 from those years. i know that i could use other websites, but like i wish it was here, as i like wikipedia. Please let me know if these articles are created! thanks. 2600:1011:B065:4976:99A8:831D:399:84D (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

March 14th, 2025 Bakersfield EF3 Tornado

I talked to someone who lived in Bakersfield and gave me details regarding the tornado damage. It was from a YouTube comment section and the person seems to be telling the truth about what they saw. I don’t know if survivors are a good reliable source on tornado damage. But what many people do agree on is that the NWS in Springfield messed up big time on the tornado rating and wind speeds. I would need to talk to other officials that were on the scene though. Colin777724 (talk) 17:22, 25 April 2026 (UTC)