Talk:1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward tornadoes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I rewrote this page, adding polish and some references. My rewrite now sounds much like (but perhaps not too much like?) the Tornado Project web reference I added. This isn't surprising, since that page is one of the few resources available discussing the Woodward event and I was quite familiar with it.

The original author of the Wikipedia article obviously used it as reference material. Is the current article different enough from the original to qualify as a "fair use" of the material? I think so, but am not completely comfortable. Any opinions are welcome.

Brian Rock 01:52, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Any description has to be similar, since the two pages are covering the same event at about the same level of detail. There are a few minor changes that might make the Wikipedia article a bit smoother and remove a few more similarities. I'll go ahead and make those that occur to me.
One of those changes is to remove the comment about estimated deaths, just caling it an estimate flags the number as different from the other reported fatalities. Lou I 17:10, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok, Lou I. Thanks.

Brian Rock 23:56, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I recently found a letter my mother-in-law wrote describing her experience of the Woodward tornado. You can find it at:

I live in this neck of the woods, and my understanding has always been that the tornado passed well south of Shattuck (6 miles or so), which, if you look at the map and figure the likely path from Higgins to Woodward makes a good deal of sense. I suspect the deaths in Shattuck-Gage-Fargo to have been "near" those towns, not in them, as they are north of that line by a fair bit. In fact, the NWS page referenced shows the towns were not hit, and the storm passed SSE of them. As such, I modified the article to reflect that.Ashtur 18:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Name change[edit]

Added year per Wikipedia:WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado's naming convention. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

why is this amount listed high to low?[edit]

Total damage estimates were $747,850,050-$173,489,564

It's proper usage to start with the lower number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

New Source[edit]

I don't know whether or not many people are watching this talk page, but it appears that the NWS WFO in Norman has a good source here: [1]. Dustin (talk) 02:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Joan Gay Croft disappearance[edit]

Somebody reverted my edit because -they- decided it wasn't significant enough. The story has made many newspapers and has appeared on TV, this after some 50 years of the event. That's significant. Unless you can successfully argue otherwise, I'm going to revert it back soon.PhilOSophocle (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

@PhilOSophocle: I don't care if you include it, but I have never heard of it when searching through the event's history (I am not actually including this in my revert reasoning though), you only cited two sources, and there is no way you can justify a level 2 header putting it on the same level as the actual event. If you have to have a unique header at all, please make it level 3 as a subsection of a level 2 section. In terms of actually including the information somewhere, that is not an issue I care to discuss. You would probably have to bring it up at WikiProject Severe weather Dustin (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Done as agreed.PhilOSophocle (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1947 Glazier–Higgins–Woodward tornadoes. 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.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent Death Toll[edit]

This page, as well as two articles on the NWS website; and all have a different death toll for the event. For here it stands at greater than 181. On these two articles, it stands at 116 and 169. Why the inconsistency, and why does this article feature the highest death toll, when it's common practice to take a middle ground? AVeryWiseWolfy (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

To clarify: The 181(+) number is from various sources and articles, including articles and books used in the reference section (ie. Thomas P. Grazulis' website The Tornado Project and his research book Significant Tornadoes). Also, tornadoes and tornado outbreaks pre-1990 (especially before 1970 - and more so pre-1954) had a risk of being inaccurate the higher the death count (especially double and triple digit numbers). And as to your links: The first one is mostly displaying a retyping of a storm report released just days after the event, and the other one with the "116" death count - that the (minimum) count of the deaths in Oklahoma alone (the higher death counts are reporting deaths in both Oklahoma and Texas).--Halls4521 (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2018 (UTC)