Talk:Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes

This tornado (happened two days ago) has just been rated an EF-4 with windspeeds of up to 190 miles per hour. I can imagine that this rating will be disputed due to its close proximity to the EF-5 rating. Only time will tell, however. Sojiniiii (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

"Might be" means almost nothing until someone disputes it. Departure– (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

That is true. However, there is debate for any EF-4 tornado with wind speeds at or above 190 miles per hour to have the EF-5 rating under Anthony W. Liza et. al. Sojiniiii (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Where's the debate then? By definition there hasn't been any since the paper already came out and isn't going to retroactively add the Diaz storm. Departure– (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

@Sojiniiii: The AMS Paper did not discuss the tornado, as the paper was published before the tornado occurred. While it did say 190+ mph winds may be EF5, Wikipedia cannot add it to this list without reliable sources directly saying this tornado was possibly EF5 intensity. Amateur posts on X, Facebook, storm chasers on YouTube, Ryan Hall, Y'all, and Reed Timmer videos are not reliable sources. Only a detailed analysis in a published paper, detailed documentary/analysis video, or a subject-matter expert (which include people like Thomas P. Grazulis or other well-published authors which most likely are already in use on this article) are the only things allowed for sourcing on this page.

In this case, attempting to use the AMS paper as justification to add the tornado would be considered original research, since the paper itself does not contain information on the specific tornado. We need to wait for a detailed analysis saying the tornado's intensity or damage was stronger/weaker than it was rated. Hopefully that helps! If you have any questions, feel free to ask! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:49, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

This page states that "This is a list of notable disagreements on the intensity of a particular tornado." However, I'm a bit confused as to why the 2021 South Moravia tornado is listed in this article. For one, there doesn't appear to be any secondary source disagreeing with the IF4 rating, and secondly, as already quoted by this article:

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 from being assigned an IF5 rating. [...]

I'm not seeing how there's any disagreement on the tornado's rating. All the source says is that although the damage resembled one of an IF5 tornado, the weak connection between the roof and the walls prevented an IF5 damage rating, hence why it was rated as an IF4. I haven't been able to find a source that disputes this conclusion nor is there a disagreement on its rating as an IF4 tornado, hence the tornado's inclusion into this article is WP:OR. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Moved from User talk: Aviationwikiflight § Can you stop please

stop unnecessarily butchering the tornado intensity disagreements page, it's incredibly detrimental to the article and completely needless. ~2026-13013-32 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Moved from User talk:Aviationwikiflight. guninvalid (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-13013-32, I have moved your discussion here as this is the proper venue for such a discussion. When making controversial edits to a page, such as a +37kb edit to a page, you should be prepared to give your reasoning. Please give your reasoning for including this information. @Aviationwikiflight, I appreciate your edit summaries for providing ample reasoning, but it would be helpful for you to provide a brief explanation here as well. guninvalid (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

@MarioProtIV, I have reverted yours and others edits to this page. Please do not make significant edits to this page or engage in edit wars without discussion. Thank you. guninvalid (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Some had contradictory information on what the tornado was rated as; however, there were no sources that stated that their rating was disputed. Basically, one source says that 'X tornado' was rated as F3, whilst another says that it was an F4. However, to include 'X tornado' in this article would be WP:OR since we would need a source that explicitly states that the rating/intensity is disputed, which was lacking in a lot of them.

Others were included because an AMS paper included a number of tornadoes on a list of potential "EF5 candidates". Whilst justification was given for some tornadoes, others were given not given any and as such, there is no actual disagreement. In addition, per WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE#Reliable sources: "In general, article statements should not rely on unclear or inconsistent passages or on passing comments." We can't include a tornado on a list of "Disagreements on the intensity of tornadoes" simply because it was mentioned once as an "EF5 candidate" without any justification.

Others relied on unreliable sources, or were included through incorrect source interpretations.

If a source doesn't explicitly disagree with the rating of the tornado, then it should not be included in this article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

oh ok, source bias strikes again

another reason for why stuff like Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:STICKTOSOURCE needs to be deprecated ~2026-13013-32 (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

If you believe WP:NOR and WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE should be deprecated, you're welcome to start a WP:RFC regarding the topic. It is going to be snow closed, but you can still start it if you like. But until that happens, you're on Wikipedia, and you must adhere to Wikipedia policies. guninvalid (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

not to mention that you removed stuff like rolling fork which is known for having a controversial rating to the point where the page has a note to not change the rating on the template. ~2026-13013-32 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I removed it because "there is no disagreement to speak of[. T]his was short of EF5 and there isn't a dispute about that". It was supported by a quote which stated that the tornado received an EF4 rating because the evidence supported an EF4 rating (even if EF5 was a possibility) and by the AMS paper which only mentioned in passing that it was an "EF5 candidate" without any reason whatsoever, so WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE#Reliable sources applies. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

this is ignoring the fact that the sight of the rolling fork tornado's damage that was debated to have been of EF5 intensity is on this article's page, so there's no reason to not include it. ~2026-13013-32 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Can you find me a reliable source that explicitly disagrees with the rating or states that there are disagreements on the intensity of the tornado? Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:17, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

This article is very similar to other pages List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes for example. I think there needs to be more written about how the EF scale doesn't necessarily show the true intensity of a tornado, or how rural tornadoes can be vastly underrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomersooner6553 (talk • contribs) 18:01, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

Im not going to say much initially here, i think its very obvious why im saying this. A large group of people believe this tornado deserved an EF5 rating, mainly due to damage such as the flower shop being completely wiped off its foundation. Im curious as to why it is not included in the examples. If there is a reason im unaware of, i'd like to know. Jelloistired (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Jelloistired, per my comment above, "I removed it [] because "there is no disagreement to speak of[. T]his was short of EF5 and there isn't a dispute about that". It was supported by a quote which stated that the tornado received an EF4 rating because the evidence supported an EF4 rating (even if EF5 was a possibility) and by the AMS paper which only mentioned in passing that it was an "EF5 candidate" without any reason whatsoever, so WP:STICKTOTHESOURCE#Reliable sources applies." Aviationwikiflight (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

Oh ok, i only added it due to a decent amount of time with no reply. appreciate the explanation! Jelloistired (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)