Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado

Wind speed

I don't see any mention of wind speed in the citation, how would they possibly figure this out 250 years ago. I would imagine the speed is derived from the Fujita scale and according to the MOS:UNIT it should have SI units primary. Avi8tor (talk) 07:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:1764 Woldegk tornado/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: WeatherWriter (talk · contribs) 21:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Dora the Axe-plorer (talk · contribs) 23:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Violation unlikely (4.8%, no search engine)
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Article is very focused on the topic
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article's history shows no edit wars or major instability. However, @Cocobb8: tagged "more citations needed" though did not elaborate their reasons. The usage definition should not apply to this article per six reference and the article's length seems fine, and "individual unreferenced statements" should be tagged cn. I have not checked for verifiability. Perhaps wrong template used? Cocobb8, if you can explain the reasons for tagging, that would greatly help my review.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.

Well-written

Lede

• Date of occurrence and location it affected is missing from lede

 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred. → "77-paragraph detailed study" change to "detailed 77-paragraph study" , "which was published one year after the tornado occurred" delete "which was"

 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "several tree branches were believed to have been thrown into the atmosphere" → change "were believed to have been" to reportedly

 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground, caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." → "Large hail, reportedly reaching 15 centimetres (6 in) in diameter covered the ground. The hail caused significant crop and property damage, killed dozens of animals, and injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." break in two sentence

 Done. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Body

• "and uprooted oak trees and beech trees." → "and began uprooting oak and beech trees."

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado escalated into F2–F3 intensity as it threw two children" → "It escalated into F2–F3 intensity, throwing two children"

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Several geese were "smashed" by hail around this time as well, and the tornado grew" → "Around this time, several geese were "smashed" by hail, and the tornado grew"

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a name for the lake mentioned in the first paragraph? Perhaps Genzmer's description has it

Genzmer's report is in German and due to what it is, I am unable to translate it easily. The academic paper did not mention the name of the lake, so unless someone can translate all of Genzmer's report to check, I do not think the lake's name is known. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the tornado" is used in excess, so avoid that repetitive language in para 2

 Done: Replaced two "the tornado" with "it". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "The tornado increased in severity as it tore the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity" → "The tornado intensified, tearing the bark from an oak tree at F4 intensity"

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Para 4: "oak and beech tree forest" → "oak and beech forest"

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Canzow is the settlement just west of Woldegk where the article described damage, it's probably worth mentioning

 Done: added "near the settlement of Canzow". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the tornado struck an airborne flock of geese, killing some and injuring 60–100 geese" close paraphrasing needs attention. Try "Further to the northeast, the tornado caught a flock of geese in flight, killing some and injuring between 60 and 100 geese.

 Done The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References & verifiability

Lede

• The Patowary ref is cited as a news article, though I have strong doubts. First, every article is authored by the same person, and the author's linked profile leads me to speculate this source is a blog. At the end of the blog, it cites the ECSS 2015 conference and Norddeutscher Rundfunk, which are already referenced in this article. Per Wikipedia's policy on blogs, Patowary ref must be removed and replaced if necessary.

 Done: Removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

This may be a similar case with the "Vista al Mar" ref

 Done: Removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• T11 claim supported by European Severe Weather Database, does not speak of wind speed. Can you include a reference for that?

 Done: Reference added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "Most of the information known about this tornado came from a 77-paragraph detailed study by German scientist Gottlob Burchard Genzmer, which was published one year after the tornado occurred." : Genzmer's ref is unnecessary, Strüber of NDR went with "56-page" so can we stick with that?

 Not done I'm going to disagree with this change. ESSL and the academic paper specifically reference Genzmer's report, with the latter saying, "The report (consisting of a foreword and seven letters with total 77 paragraphs) is addressed to the minister of Mecklenburg-Strelitz who asked the author for a survey of the damage and the circumstances of this natural disaster." For that, I will not remove the reference and will not change it to "56-page". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "... injured multiple people in a large stretch around the tornado and to the northwest of the tornado's path." : the two refs afterwards aren't necessary once the contents in the body are verified (with the same refs).

 Done: Refs removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Body

• Para 1 and 2 exclusively cite the ECSS ref so one in-line ref at the end of each para would suffice

 Done: Additional in-line refs removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "the lake's water rose in what was likely a seiche and then retreated around the time of the tornado", no mention of a seiche in the ref

 Done: "Seiche" removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• The database in-line ref immediately after the 3rd sentence of para 3 isn't needed

 Done: in-line removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• The ESSL ref assigns the mansion damage F5, while NDR source says the basis for F5 was "oak stumps torn from the ground". Vista al Mar appears to be a blog. Database ref doesn't explicitly say it is maximum damage, is this screenshot part of a larger archived database?

Answered below in MOS-section. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• "After destroying the mansion, the tornado quickly weakened to F1 and left a 500-metre (550 yd) wide path of light damage in a forest." unreferenced but the corresponding ref is probably ECSS

 Done: In-line for ECSS added. Despite it being references two sentences back-to-back, the preceding sentence has a direct quote, so the double in-line is needed in my opinion. It can be removed if necessary for the GAN though. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Entirety of the last paragraph cites ECSS so only one in-line citation required at the end

 Done: Addition in-line refs removed.

MOS

• WP:Overcite issue addressed above

I presume  Done? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Please include the original url and archive date of the European Severe Weather Database ref

 Done: Reference of the ESWD was copied from Tornadoes of 2024. Note, the ESWD is an auto-updating reference which only displays the latest 25 reports (99% chance they are all from the day you open it). Users have to manually change the date. I am just adding that reference, since readers/editors have a few manual steps to actual verify the reference, now that the Internet Archive screenshot (not ESWD archived link) was removed. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

• Norddeutscher Rundfunk ref is missing publication date

 Done: Reference fixed up. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Coverage

Fine

Overall

This is a really interesting albeit short article. There's problems with some of the references here, and the prose can be further refined. The nominator has another seven days to address the GA concerns before I can pass this review.Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 19:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter are you going to respond to the comments for the GAN? Otherwise I will close this review by Friday PST as failed. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 01:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dora the Axe-plorer: I have made the necessary changes I believe. If I missed something or additional changes are needed, please shoot me a ping! I do appreciate you taking the time to review the article! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response! Ill go through the changes again and i can eventually pass this if all is good. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 04:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright one more nitpicking, the Feuerstein reference says the wind speed for T11 is 468 to 515 km/h whereas the article claims T11 is at least 480 km/h. Can you clarify this and also add cite for the respective tornado scales in the footnote? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 15:11, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think this is now  Done. It gets really confusing since the TORRO scale, in actuality, is obsolete and is barely used anymore (actually only used now-adays by the TORRO organization). TORRO's own website on the scale doesn't list the wind speeds for T11, but they do mention "T8, T9, T10, T11 are violent tornadoes" below the chart. T10 goes to 299 mph per their own scale. ESSL mentions the tornado was rated T11/F5, but only this tornado holds the T11 rank. Every other T10 tornado has already been converted to F5 or IF5, so I am 99% sure this is the last "violent" tornado on the TORRO-scale. Basically, just an archival fact now. T11 exists per TORRO, but since T10 ends at 299 mph, it is 300+ mph. I added the TORRO-scale website to the citation. Hopefully that fixes the issue and helps explain why it seems like a pain to verify this. TL;DR - T11 exists, but does not exist at the same time. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I will pass this article the green light for GA Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 23:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement

I see there is an ongoing disagreement between Luffaloaf and Dora the Axe-plorer on the article. Instead of edit warring, could both of y'all come and discuss it here? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter Actually @Luffaloaf should discuss this with you because of the content disagreement. I only rv their edits because it broke the infobox source code such that they're in the prose. I assume Luffaloaf is educated about tornadoes so please sort that out, and :@Luffaloaf, don't disrupt the source code/delete references, please preview your edits. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Luffaloaf your rationale may be legitimate but the execution is problametic so if another revert by you goes through, I am obliged to report to ANI Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I’d take notes from how the entries for various earlier modern, significant tornadoes were written. The Tri-State tornado outbreak, one we have photographic evidence of in regards to its damage, is a good example (I deleted the “peak wind” estimate, as it is misleading and not scientifically verifiably give the tornado occurred in 1925). The article avoids a rigorous F-value-by-F-value damage analysis because we simply don’t have one. That kind of thing should be saved for tornadoes surveyed by contemporary teams of engineers and meteorologists. Certainly there should be no publishing wind speed estimates that haven’t been surveyed by Doppler radar. ~~~~ Luffaloaf (talk) 22:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC) — Luffaloaf (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Dcasey98 (talk · contribs).

Edits by Luffaloaf

@Luffaloaf If you disagree with the content, you discuss with the editor until both of you come to an agreement. Do not break the infobox source code/delete references. and if you actually want to remove content, preview your edits. Your changes didn't improve the state of the article either. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 21:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The article is riddled with problems. For one, Fujita scale values are only certifiable from the era of the scale’s invention in the 1970s. Tornadoes that long predate the modern era of meteorological study should not have infoboxes that assert MPH wind speeds (and associated TORRO values), nor have fake intensity guidance for the alleged damage path manufactured for them by the editors. For instance, “debarked an oak tree at F4 intensity” [sic] - this is a completely inappropriate usage of the Fujita scale. Debarking doesn’t guarantee any tornado receives an F4 rating, and portions of a tornado’s path are not decided based on “debarking” alone. All of the mentions of Fujita scale values in the article need to be removed bar the ones that estimate a peak at F5. This is an estimated, potential rating, not one that’s been certified by a team of engineers based on modern practices. Additionally, the superlative language used should be removed (as in the sentence proclaiming it one of the “strongest tornadoes in history” [sic] in the summary. We already have people online proclaiming it to be “stronger than Joplin”, a tornado we actually have a team of engineers survey for from days after it occurred, because this page on Woldegk shares misleading wind speeds, exaggerations, and other misinformation the likes of which would be deleted on a page for any other tornado). The last thing I’ll say is the likelihood that this tornado was not an F5 is very high, as the death/injury count is anomalously low, the nature of the damage and the engineering of the impacted structures cannot be verified (they likely wouldn’t be to such a standard to warrant an F5 rating), and Europe’s tornado climatology simply isn’t conducive to that kind of storm - such an intense tornado has not been identified in Europe for the modern period of record. Luffaloaf (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC) sock strike

You should check out the European Severe Storms Laboratory (the EU's counterpart to NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory, specifically their European Severe Weather Database, which actually directly states, the following for the 1764 Woldegk tornado:

Tornado

Woldegk
Feldberg, Schlicht, Lichtenberg, Lichtenberger Meierei, Neugarten, Rothe Kirche, Canzow, Woldegk, Helpt, Groß Miltzow Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
Germany (53.46 N, 13.57 E)
29-06-1764 (Friday)
12:05 UTC (+/- 1 hrs.)
based on information from: a report in scientific literature, a report on a website, an eye-witness report
occurring over: land
intensity and other characteristics: F5 T11
Suction vortices were not observed.
The funnel cloud was observed.
accompanying weather: hail >= 0.5 cm but < 2.0 in diameter.
total event duration: 35 minutes
path length: 33 km
average path width: 450 m
maximum path width: 800 m
direction of movement: SSW-NNE
path start from (53.33 N, 13.41 E)
path end at (53.54 N, 13.60 E)
Number of people injured: 3. Number of people dead: 1.
Path width 104 m, 48 m, 160 m, 240 m, 80 m, 280 m, 750 m, 360 m, 230 m, 800 m Hail swath left of tornado swath, large debris thrown over some tens of km Hailstones "up to two pound weight with 15 cm ice spikes"
report status: scientific case study (QC2)

contact: TorDACH V1.6.00, tordach.org/de, ; G. B. Genzmer, 1765: Beschreibung des Orcans, welcher den 29ten Jun. 1764; einen Strich von etlichen Meilen im Stargardischen Kreise des Herzogthums; Mecklenburg gewaltig verüstet hat. F. Nicolai, Berlin und Stettin.; A. Wegener, 1917: Wind- und Wasserhosen in Europa, Vieweg, 301 S.; (available on www.tordach.org)

— European Severe Storms Laboratory

You should also check out this academic paper, which includes a damage survey map with modern Fujita scale ratings. Hopefully that helps! When I created this article, I ensured everything was cited and as accurate as possible. That is also one reason it passed Wikipedia's Good Article Nomination process, to be rated as one of the best articles on Wikipedia in terms of quality. If you have any other questions though, feel free to ask away! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as there needs to be acknowledgment of its age, and the fact that the damage analysis is filtered through 18th century witness accounts, not a modern team of engineers. Additionally, natural science was very different in the 18th century. Technology didn’t enable intensity guidance rating for tornadoes, and nothing in the damage description warrants an F5 rating, which was applied to manufacture a climatology for violent tornadoes in Europe. At the very least, claims that it is the “strongest tornado ever” need to be removed, assertions that debarking occurs at “F4 intensity” need to be removed, and arbitrary wind speeds that weren’t REMOTELY measured (and affiliated TORRO values) need to be removed. NOAA is not so unprofessional an organization that it hands out Fujita scale classifications to 250+ year old tornadoes. That ESSL would shows that they’re flaunting scientific process and care more about media hype and money. Luffaloaf (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The source doesn’t hold up to scrutiny, as there needs to be acknowledgment of its age, and the fact that the damage analysis is filtered through 18th century witness accounts. Additionally, natural science was very different in the 18th century. Technology didn’t enable intensity guidance rating for tornadoes, and nothing in the damage description warrants an F5 rating, which was applied to manufacture a climatology for violent tornadoes in Europe. At the very least, claims that it is the “strongest tornado ever” need to be removed, assertions that debarking occurs at “F4 intensity” need to be removed, and arbitrary wind speeds that weren’t REMOTELY measured (and affiliated TORRO values) need to be removed. ~~~~ Luffaloaf (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

So...you just stated PhD meteorologists, who regularly publish academic papers all the time, as well as the meteorologist who physically surveyed the 2021 South Moravia tornado & who helped created the International Fujita scale, is an unreliable source? You do reaize that academic paper is not from the 18th century, but from September 2015 right? You should take a quick look at Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Everything on Wikipedia has to have a source. All the information in this article has a source, including that "F4 intensity" statement. If you believe the ESSL is not a reliable source, then you need to bring it up at WP:RSP, since the European Severe Storms Laboratory is used across dozens of Wikipedia articles, including the List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes article. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

• Your arguments are based on a level of original research. This tornado was rated F5/T11 by modern scientists in 2015, legit after the most recent EF5 tornado even occurred. This is not some 18th century tornado rating. This is a rating by respective meteorology experts. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

They have continued to argue about it's rating off-wiki (if I'm even allowed to add that, please remove this comment if I'm not), I would watchlist this page as I wouldn't be surprised if they come back. E_F⁵ 00:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It was handed an “estimated” F5 rating based on the 18th century damage description alone by meteorologists, not the team of engineers that is always involved in certifying F scale ratings. It certainly wasn’t rated T11 based on anything concrete, as this requires wind speeds that have never been measured in Europe (they’ve only been recorded in Tornado Alley). You are claiming that your sources warrant lying about 300 MPH wind speeds or specific intensity guidance. The Fujita scale is an American construct invented in the 1970s. Just because some European meteorologists want to hype up a historically significant European tornado report from the 18th century doesn’t all of a sudden make, for instance, their evaluation that debarking of an oak tree = F4 scientifically legitimate. It is not. In the modern day, tornado damage surveys involve teams of engineers and meteorologists surveying the damage path days after the event. These days, we even have radar data for the storms to get clearer estimates on pressure, debris patterns, and wind speeds. Your source references no concrete measurement of 300 MPH winds, MPH measurements didn’t exist at the time of the tornado. It references an ESSL log that only sites “a report on a website” in its justification for declaring the tornado an F5. It also sites “eyewitness accounts”, the eyewitnesses being 18th century people. Also, reports from 18th century scientists of this nature are dubious, as the superstitions of the time led to exaggeration and inaccuracy. This was the pre-Enlightenment era. You need to cite a measurement of 300 MPH wind speeds if you’re going to say this tornado had such winds. You need to site a survey that involves wind engineers to post definitive intensity guidance. Individual meteorologists hypotheses don’t qualify as adequate sources here. Luffaloaf (talk) 22:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

As I was mentioning yesterday, the information in the article is valid for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has the ideology of Verifiability, not Truth, which is actually why the Tornadoes of 2022 article has factually inaccurate information, but verifiable information (learn about that here: WP:VNTIA). Here is a breakdown I'll try to make based on your statements (I apologize if I misread or misrepresent your statement, this is just how I read it. If it is wrong, please correct me.)

1. "It was handed an “estimated” F5 rating based on the 18th century damage description alone by meteorologists, not the team of engineers that is always involved in certifying F scale ratings. It certainly wasn’t rated T11 based on anything concrete, as this requires wind speeds that have never been measured in Europe (they’ve only been recorded in Tornado Alley)." Yes, it was "estimated" to be an F5 rating. Most tornadoes do not have measured wind speeds. In fact, we have an entire list of all the tornadoes with measured wind speeds over at Mobile radar observation of tornadoes. The fact it is estimated does not change the fact that it was estimated by a reliable source (ESSL), and can be mentioned in the article. "It certainly wasn’t rated T11 based on anything concrete" is based on original research and/or your opinion, which is not relevant for what content is or is not valid per Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
2. "You are claiming that your sources warrant lying about 300 MPH wind speeds or specific intensity guidance." I never stated the 300 mph was made up. The ESSL directly rated it T11, which is the belief of at least 300 mph winds. As I mentioned yesterday, currently, the European Severe Storms Laboratory is considered a presumed reliable source. If you truly believe the ESSL is not a reliable source for Wikipedia or just this specific tornado, then a separate discussion should be held over at the reliable source noticeboard, where the community specifically discusses whether or not a source is reliable in general or for a specific article.
3. "Just because some European meteorologists want to hype up a historically significant European tornado report from the 18th century doesn’t all of a sudden make, for instance, their evaluation that debarking of an oak tree = F4 scientifically legitimate. It is not." Original research statement which also goes back to the point of whether or not ESSL is reliable for this article.
4. "Individual meteorologists hypotheses don’t qualify as adequate sources here." Same as before.

Based on a detailed review of your statements, it truly sounds like the article's content isn't your problem, but rather that the European Severe Storms Laboratory is not a reliable source. So, to gain a community consensus on that issue, as required by Wikipedia guidelines, you should open a discussion at the the reliable source noticeboard. NOTE: The noticeboard discussion is specifically to get the opinions of editors not even related to the article's topic; in this case, the opinions of editors who have not edited this article at all. In that discussion, this article itself would not be relevant, but rather the specific reliability of the ESSL. If, and only if, the community decides the ESSL is not a valid source for this article should the information be removed. Sound good? I know this seems insane to get content removed that you believe is wrong, but there is a process to go through, since someone else (myself and others) disagree with you. The noticeboard is specifically to get the thoughts from editors not involved in this topic and who can be objective (third-opinions, if you will). Hopefully this reply helps! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 00:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Responding to each of your numbered points. I’m on mobile, so please forgive any typos here:

1) TORRO ratings are meant to be applied with measured wind speeds, or a survey by wind engineers at the very least. You are literally referencing an ESSL meteorologist’s “original research” to invalidate what you’re calling my “original research”. It is not “original research” to claim a TORRO value should not be applied to a 250+ year old tornado that was not surveyed, properly documented, or measured to an extent that would allow us to rate it. The article doesn’t merely state that the tornado was estimated at an F5/T11 - if you insist on leaving this information up, you need to distinguish it from tornadoes that have been surveyed by wind engineers and/or have measured 300 MPH wind gusts. You cannot just say that the tornado is “the strongest of all time” or that it had 300 MPH winds. That’s ridiculous and misleading.

2) The ESSL did not rely on wind engineers to estimate damage like the NWS/NOAA in the US, or like they do when assigning IF ratings. A meteorologist vaguely estimated it at the top of the F scale, and the TORRO scale, which is pegged to 300+ MPH winds. This was clearly done for sensationalist reasons if they are disregarding the tornado rating protocol so obviously, to assign it such extreme values, based on a pre-enlightenment report that mostly comprises witness accounts of the tornado from a year after it occurred.

3) Tree debarking alone does not constitute F4 damage according to the EF scale - this is not original research, this is basic fact. Regular reminder that there is no direct evidence whatsoever of the debarking to verify its extent, and therefore any F-scale rating for the tornado (let alone at every section of its supposed path).

4) You are using a meteorologist’s original research to run roughshod over proper verification of empirical elements like wind speed - there is no concrete evidence of 300 MPH winds, or damage that would necessarily justify an estimation of such winds, or an F5/T11 rating. Contrasting this with DI’s for Joplin 2011 (the removal of concrete parking stops anchored with rebar, manhole covers, and asphalt from roads), and how these were used by University of Iowa wind engineers to estimate wind speeds only as high as 250 MPH, it’s clear that there is no serious justification for the 300 MPH estimate for Woldegk at all.

The source you are citing is a secondary, not primary, source. The primary source would be the 18th century report, which simply isn’t up to modern standards of survey. It is notable for its use of witnesses, and the fact that it was taken a year after the tornado had occurred. It doesn’t involve any engineer-based analysis either. Luffaloaf (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll try my best to respond to your 4 points.

1. "TORRO ratings are meant to be applied with measured wind speeds, or a survey by wind engineers at the very least." What is your secondary reliable source for that statement? If you do not have a source or this is a "trust me"-style statement, then per Wikipedia's no original research policy, it is irrelevant.
2. "The ESSL did not rely on wind engineers to estimate damage like the NWS/NOAA in the US, or like they do when assigning IF ratings." Source? Or is this a "trust me" statement?
3. "Tree debarking alone does not constitute F4 damage according to the EF scale. The EF-scale is entirely irrelevant to this tornado, which was rated on the Fujita and TORRO scale. No idea why you brought this up.
4. "You are using a meteorologist’s original research" That is not what "original research" is. Original research is when an editor on Wikipedia does their own research or adds their own statements/findings to Wikipedia, without any source whatsoever. If ESSL physically published it online, then by definition, it is not "original research". "The source you are citing is a secondary, not primary, source. That is exactly correct! Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources over primary sources! See WP:PRIMARY for more information on that. Per Wikipedia's guidelines at WP:RS: "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves".

So to say again, if your concern is that ESSL themselves are not a reliable source for this article, you need to go to the reliable source noticeboard. If you believe I am violating Wikipedia's no original research policy, or any of Wikipedia's policies, then you are free to report it at the Administrators Noticeboard. To me, you are restating the idea that ESSL is not valid to cite for this article and to me, you are using original research-based ideas, not actual secondary source reasons, to justify that ideology. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing anything, specifically any Wikipedia policy-based reasons, to justify the removal of the content. This sounds like a case of verifiability, not truth mixed with a little "I just don't like it". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

1) I do not have to have a source to back up the statement that TORRO is only applicable when a wind measurement is verifiable. This is self-evident. Your go-to attempt to invalidate doesn’t work here. What’s more, Germany and Europe generally does not use the TORRO scale, it uses the IF scale to rate tornadoes. The page for the TORRO scale on Wikipedia says: “unlike with the F scale, no analyses have been undertaken at all to establish the veracity and accuracy of the T scale damage descriptors.” “Trust-me style statements” = basic fact. I don’t need a source to tell you “300 MPH hasn’t been measured in Woldegk”. You need to provide a source that confirms this measurement you’re proposing on the page, I don't need to prove a negative.

2) …I’m a little concerned that you think I need a source to interpret the source you posted here, which lists its primary sources (“a web page”, “witnesses”), none of which have anything to do with wind engineers. I don’t need to provide you a source that wind engineers are involved in official damage surveys. That’s basic information, and if you don’t know that, you shouldn’t be editing any tornado-related Wikipedia page.

3) …The EF scale is developed on the F scale, and the DIs do not change (vis a vis debarking of trees) between the two. The “F4” value is the one inappropriately used in the article, not a TORRO value or an EF value.

Here’s the facts:

a) The ESSL has no official documentation of 300 MPH winds, nor is it made clear in the article you wrote what the justification is for this wind estimate.

b) The meteorologist has no evidence whatsoever to assign F values to 18th century witness descriptions of a tornado’s damage 1 year after it occurred. The meteorologists rated it F5 based on damage to a cobblestone house. F5 aligns with the top of the T scale (300 MPH winds<), so the ESSL sloppily logged it as such. If pointing this out is worth an accusation of me doing “original research”, then you are just trying to gatekeep a page full of blatantly ridiculous exaggerations and misinfo. I get that this delusional article is important to you, but your line of argumentation is laughably flimsy and unreasonable, full of false dichotomies and fallacious deference to authority. Luffaloaf (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You seem to have disregarded all the policies I have mentioned earlier and continue the same argument over and over, with no attempts to resolve. I believe we shall have to agree to disagree and we should both drop the discussion. This article passed a good article peer review, so the process to gain a consensus to remove content is on you. Please do not remove content from the article unless you have the consensus to back up that removal. For me, I do not plan to reply in this discussion again, as Wikipedia is not about winning any discussion, but rather upholding the policy and guidelines to build a better encyclopedia. Editors do not have to agree with each other and I may be wrong, you may be wrong, or we both may be wrong. But, this discussion has stalemated it appears. If you wish to remove the content, please build a consensus to do so at the reliable source noticeboard as mentioned earlier or by formally requesting a third opinion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

You added content, including empirical elements, that are not reported by sources whatsoever, including F-scale intensity rating by damage that wasn't remotely echoed in a damage survey of carried about by a structural engineer, original user of the F scale for numerous US tornadoes from the 70s, and developer of the EF scale. Your line of argumentation is utterly absurd. The T6 update was added by an IP, and did not build up consensus to change the article in such a way - which it needed to do, especially as the lion's share of sources contradict this (especially any information on the F or EF rating of the tornado). I will stop as long as a third person reviews my edits and sources and says they aren't adequate. Luffaloaf (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC) Sock strike

Citation Needed Tag

@Luffaloaf: I have tagged a sentence you added to the article with a citation needed template. Can you please add a citation to the article for the sentence “Despite the estimations given by the ESSL, the lack of physical evidence or photographic documentation makes the tornado’s intensity difficult to verify”? Thanks! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

• I went ahead and removed the information. You can re-add the information if it has a citation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)