Talk:List of F5, EF5, and IF5 tornadoes/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tornadoes that should likely be added to the F5/EF5 list

Possible F5/EF5 that should/likely be added to this list

Day	Year	Country	State	Location	Notes	Listed F5 by
May 26	1917	US	IN	Monroe	This tornado moved along Clear Creek south of Bloomington. Three entire farms were leveled to near F5 level and the debris was thrown 12 miles.	NWS
May 31	1985	US	PA	Moshannon	Both Maximilian and NWS both stated it might have been rated F5 if it had hit buildings, Tom grazulis stated it was one of the most intense tornadoes (likely meaning possible f5 rating?) will be added to the offical list along with the pampa tornado. It was said to be one of the most amazing tornadic events of the 20th century. It was officially given a F4 rating since it hit nothing but national forest, but it was thought to be a F5. It was 1.8+ miles wide, lasted for 69 miles, went over several mountains, ripped up/sheered/and or totally debarked some 90,000 trees (some of which were 3+ feet in diameter), and caused several tremors recorded on seismographs in Penn State University. Tom Grazulis described it as one of the greatest tornadic events in recent history due to it’s size, intensity and unusual location.	Maximilian Hagen , NWS , Tom Grazulis?
Jun 8	1995	US	TX	Pampa	On June 8, 1995, a violent tornado hit the industrial section on the west side of Pampa, destroying or damaging about 250 businesses and homes. It resulted in $30 million in damage and was the costliest and the most destructive tornado on record for this town. It had a three-mile path and was two hundred yards wide. At its peak, it was rated an F4 on the Fujita Scale. Out of all the videos taken of this tornado, the most famous came from a local sheriff, Randy Stubblefield, who used his dashboard camera to videotape the twister. At one point in the video, the tornado lifted and hurled a van and a couple of flattened pick-up trucks into the air. In spite of the tornado's intensity, there were no deaths. Winds of around 250 to 300 MPH were mesured using photogrammetry.	Maximilian Hagen , Tom Grazulis
May 9	2006	US	TX	Westminster	High-end F3 tornado carrying winds of close to 200 MPH touched down about a mile north of the small Texas town of Westminster. Just 40 miles north of Dallas, this tornado killed an elderly couple and a teen-aged boy while injuring 11 others and destroying at least 11 homes. The tornado was capable of causing EF5 damage. It’s a perfect example of the many Smithville/Joplin/Moore/Pampa-type tornadoes that go unnoticed each year. Livestock was killed, trees were snapped, and homes and outbuildings were destroyed. Some of the destroyed homes were reduced to bare slabs, and aerial photography revealed that extensive ground scouring occurred along much of the path. Several vehicles in the area were thrown and wrapped around trees as well. The tornado was officially rated high-end F3 (though this rating is sometimes disputed due to the intensity of the damage.)	Maximilian Hagen and ???
Feb 5	2008	US	AR	Atkins–Clinton–Mountain View–Highland	Near the small community of Zion, the tornado hurled a Hummer a quarter mile from an obliterated residence. Another vehicle in the same area was mangled beyond recognition and wrapped around a denuded tree. Whether the tornado was capable of causing EF5 damage will never be known since the storm, like most, reached peak intensity in unpopulated areas.	Maximilian Hagen
Aug 7	2010	US	ND	Wilkins county	While overall damage was fairly limited, the tornado that remained in rural areas near Tyler, North Dakota. Farm buildings were obliterated and fields scoured by that tornado, which was rated as an EF4, it was only 30 yards wide yet was probably capable of causing EF5 damage.	Maximilian Hagen
April 27	2011	US	AL	Cullman/Arab, Alabama	A violent long track tornado developed on the north side of Lewis Smith Lake. The tornado tracked northeast into the city of Cullman. Some of the worst damage occurred just northeast of U.S. Highways 31 and 278. Several small retail buildings were completely destroyed. along with the near total destruction of a large church. Just north of Fairview, 2 homes were destroyed with significant portions of the homes not found. Further northeast, the tornado caused major structural damage to several old (early 1900s) homes. Numerous hardwood trees were debarked. From Cullman County into extreme southeast Morgan County near the town of Hulaco. Several cinder block and old construction homes were destroyed, and numerous trees were snapped and sheared toward the base. Then crossed into northwest Marshall County north of Arab, in the Ruth community, Mount Oak and Frontier Roads were hardest hit where a cinder block/cement home was nearly wiped clean. Debris from a home on Frontier Road was thrown 50 to 100 yards away. A trailer was missing and a metal-bolted garage was wiped clean of its foundation. A large brick home was nearly wiped clean off its foundation with several large trees ripped out of the ground and missing. Several concrete power poles were bent over, some bent at the base. A gas station building was completely demolished and two gas pumps were ripped from the ground and missing. Tree damage in rural areas that was most likely indicative of EF5 intensity.	Maximilian Hagen , NWS?
April 27	2011	US	AL	Reform–Oakman–Cordova–Blountsville, Alabama	This long track tornado initially touched down 5 miles northeast of Pickensville. It produced significant tree damage along AL Hwy 171. Trees were debarked with only bare large limbs left. One of the mobile home undercarriages was missing, having been tossed at least 500 yards. At this site, a small bulldozer was flipped over, a pickup truck was tossed 200 yards, and an International 4700 dump truck was tossed 50 yards and was destroyed upon landing. A 2 ton utility trailer from this location was found a mile away, with a 2.5 ft impact crater where it landed. As the tornado neared Old Hwy 78, it tossed two double wide mobile homes at least 100 yards, resulting in their complete destruction. a wide swath of pine and hardwood trees was found snapped at the bases or splintered several feet off the ground, with some debarking of trees. South of Hwy 91 along Washington Loop, several homes were damaged or destroyed. A mobile home was obliterated and the frame was found at least 200 yards to the east up a hill. A cinder block home was wiped out, with the contents landing across the road, while the cars nearby were tossed. The storm shelter by the residence was partially lifted and damaged. The person inside received minor injuries. Tree damage in rural areas that was most likely indicative of EF5 intensity.	Maximilian Hagen
April 27	2011	US	AL	Raleigh–Rose Hill–Enterprise, Mississippi/Yantley–Uniontown, Alabama	Pending info.	Maximilian Hagen
April 27	2011	US	TN	Ringgold, Georgia/Southeast Tennessee	Pending info.	Maximilian Hagen
Nov 17	2013	US	IL	East Peoria–Washington–Long Point, Illinois	Pending info.	Maximilian Hagen , NWS?
Apr 9	2015	US	IL	Rochelle–Fairdale	At its strongest, peak winds were estimated to be 200 mph. The tornado intensified to EF-4 where several well constructed homes along South Richard Road and East Kuehl Court were completely destroyed with the slab swept clean. Several outbuildings were destroyed along East Hemstock Road and South Center Road. A residence on East Bethal Road received heavy damage with most of the outer walls collapsing. The tornado once again intensified to EF-4 near IL-251 and IL-64 where well constructed homes were swept clean off their foundation. A farmstead just northeast of the aforementioned intersection was also swept clean to the foundation. A heavy barn was thrown and rolled on East Lindenwood Road. In total, around 30 homes were damaged or destroyed around Rochelle.	NWS? (200 mph and litterly talks about EF5 damage alot however never states EF5? confusing)

(Note this list isnt even finish will be updated) Should also post your own list of what tornado to look into that might be F5/EF5 (Edit:it seems the pampa wind speed mesurement came form tom grazulis base on maximilian hagen) Joshoctober16 (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Verifying a lot of these is probably doubtful. I looked at the sources you give for Moshannon and the most I saw on that was speculation, which is not enough to warrant inclusion. I suspect a large fraction of F4/EF4-rated tornadoes, especially in rural areas, likely reached F5/EF5 intensity but were not rated as such due to a lack of adequate damage indicators. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Likely not enough to add to the list/article, but both Grazulis' book (1991, pg. 752), and this NWS/SPC site (https://www.weather.gov/lmk/violent_tornadoes_indiana) say that on May 26, 1917 an estimated F4 tornado in Monroe County, Indiana caused "near-F5 level damage" to some farms it destroyed.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Near-F5 is not the same as F5. As I said before, nothing should be added to this list unless a source explicitly says it was F5 or possibly F5. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked the 1917 and 1920 events. The NWS got this information from Grazulis. The 1917 tornado is only said to be "near-F5", but near-F5 still means F4. The 1920 tornado is already on the list. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Significant Tornadoes Update

I had to return the copy of Grazulis' book I got from the library. I think we found all the F5 tornadoes that were listed in his 1993 book. Have there been any news the update he supposedly going to release soon?--Halls4521 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think I saw that the plan is to publish it in 2021. That makes sense since the original was published in 1993. TornadoLGS (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. It'll be interesting to see his thoughts on the tornadoes from 1996-2019, especially Joplin (and 2011 altogether), 2013 Moore, and 2013 El Reno.--Halls4521 (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

2 things Changing the sub group years and Future of this Page.

1 Before 1900

2 1900–1949

3 1950–1999

4 2000–2019

is what it is at the moment. However i would like it to be more like how noaa rates them in there ERA like this.

0.Pre data Era: Before 1950 (or Era 0)

1.Era 1: 1950-1976 (Pre F Scale)

2.Era 2: 1977-June 1994 (F Scale)

3.Era 3: July 1994-Jan 2007 (Modern F Scale)

4.Era 4: Feb 2007-2021? (EF Scale)

5.Era 5: 2021? (New EF Scale) this is whenever they change the EF scale that is Under development.

Each era is a big change of how we Rate tornadoes in there F-EF scale. https://ams.confex.com/ams/28SLS/webprogram/Paper300990.html this is a link talking about this Era class. still unsure when Era 5 is comming but all this planing is stated to be finish around spring 2019.

There is still alot i need to change about this page however my pc is slowing this down and it takes quite a while for me to edit any little thing on wiki. mostly i am still planing tweaks for the color scale in here , and a bit more sub info that i will try to show it in here. Joshoctober16 (talk) 16:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My only issue with that system is that it is United States-centric. While the vast majority of the tornadoes on this list were in the U.S., it still gets tricky with tornadoes outside the U.S. For example, the Elie, Manitoba tornado was rated F5 while the U.S. was using the Enhanced Fujita scale. Conversely France has applied Enhanced Fujita scale ratings to pre-2007 tornadoes. Not to mention if any tornado gets rated T10 or T11 on the TORRO scale.TornadoLGS (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it does ignore the storms outside the U.S.: Not all the countries in the world uses the EF-scale (f-scale, TORRO scale, both), and some storms (mainly in Europe) from Pre-1950 are officially rated in their countries. And I don't think putting the storms from other countries in a separate grouping would work either.--Halls4521 (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Undisputed US F5 tornadoes - Pre 1950

I know that all the listed (estimated) F5 tornadoes in the U.S. prior to 1950 were rated/estimated by Dr. Thomas P. Grazulis and the ones accepted by the NCDC/NCEI are considered undisputed. But should we also do the same for the ones where the estimated ratings are accepted/referenced by either the NWS, SPC, or NOAA, or, at least reference on one of there websites? And if so, what about in cases "IF" (and that's a big if) we find other notable and highly acknowledged severe weather/tornado experts that agrees with his ratings? Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 23:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Are they undisputed? I was under the impression than all ratings prior to 1950 were unofficial. Unfortunately I can't view any of the NCDC records because of the shutdown. 02:13, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that the Pre-1950 storms rated F5 by Grazulis AND accepted as such by NCDC/NCEI was given the color-code in the article for (officially) "unrated but undisputed" to be an F5 strength tornado. So I was wondering about the ones he rated F5 that are noted or referenced by NOAA, NWS and SPC (including websites of the "local" NWS offices), as well as if and when we were to find qualified experts that agreed with him on others. And it looks like the only the site for regional/local NWS site are up (at least some of them).--Halls4521 (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the current classification system for pre-1950 tornadoes. I figure it should be more like. "Not officially rated, but listed by some sources as F5/EF5" or "generally accepted as F5/EF5" But, if I had to choose, I'd have to see the NCDC report, as to whether there's a reason these tornadoes aren't mentioned there. Does the NCDC dispute the F5 rating or is it more of a "no comment" deal due to a lack of information? I should note that at least some pre-1950 tornadoes back to 1916 were rated by Fujita, and I seem to recall a couple instances where Fujita and Grazulis disagreed on an F5 rating, but I can't remember which ones. It would be nice to find Fujita's list. What I did notice was that some of the tornadoes were listed as "officially Officially rated below F5/EF5/not rated, but rating is disputed; event may have been F5/EF5" which is an entirely inappropriate category. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding right away. While I was for a more simplified color legend for the article, I now think it's "too" simplified. For the Pre-1950 U.S. tornadoes we're defining undisputed as solely on the estimated ratings of Grazulis been accepted by NCDC/NCEI; and all the other U.S. tornadoes of this period (whether they're "generally/widely accepted", could also be considered "undisputed", or "considered to be a possible F5" tornado) are now grouped together with tornadoes Post-1950 that "may have been (a) F5/EF5" tornado (1952 Moscow (TN), 1953 Worcester, 1965 Dunlap–Elkhart, 2011 Tuscaloosa–Birmingham, 2013 El Reno, etc.). I don't want to ignore other experts (ie. T. Fujita) that could be reliable sources for these pre-modern storms, or treat NCDC/NCEI as the only weather agency for these storms. P.S. I really do wish someone would re-release/print/post Fujita's 1916-1992 list of tornado ratings.--Halls4521 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree that "officially under F5" is not an appropriate categorization, but I'm on the fence as to whether we should create separate separate listings for the undisputed ones and uncertain ones, or list them all as one pre-1950 category since none of the ratings are technically official. Most of the ones in this category were listed by Grazulis as F4 but mentioned as possibly F5. I am not aware of any published material that rates pre-1950 U.S. tornadoes other than Fujita or Grazulis. Most of what I've seen on NWS and other pages is probably based on their assessments. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, untill the legend is perfected I wouldn't mind the idea of having the Pre-1950 U.S. tornadoes in their own category. Besides, I think in some of the storms its less that some of the ones Grazulis rated F5 are in dispute, and more he's the only source of the estimated rating. (The same would probably be the same for some of Fujita's estimated ratings if they were ever posted.) Some are "widely accepted", just not listed by NCDC/NCEI/NOAA/SPC/NWS sites or put on that old NCDC list.--Halls4521 (talk) 00:56, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Then that leaves one more matter to discuss in that regard. Some of the tornadoes listed here are listed by Grazulis as F4, but with the note that they may have been F5. Should these get a fifth designation? TornadoLGS (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Either that or leave them under the "Officially rated below F5/EF5/not (officially) rated" designation. (The fifth designation probably would be better.) And I guess we should start moving some of Grazulis' F5 estimates over to "Not officially rated, but listed by at least some sources F5/EF5", or hold off for a bit?--Halls4521 (talk) 02:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd have to double check, but I think all those that should be listed under that designation are, except for the ones Grazulis lists as possibly F5. I already changed the description for tornadoes alread listed with no official rating. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Dodge city tornadoes

there were 2 tornadoes on that day i found to look almost EF5 but were in the middle of no wheres... i just discovered the DOW was there!

10+ tornadoes and 3 of them did some ground scouring , even noting 1 of them would of been rated EF5 if it had hit houses , 200+ mph winds were recorded as well however... im having a issue of... well what one was it? base on 2 different sources it makes no sense what tornado they are talking about so im unsure how to put it , it appears to be Tornado number 4 Rated EF2 but the damage path on both source makes it seem like they are different tornadoes? so how the heck do i put this one? https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=641029 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0125.1

i can tell they are mixing up the tornadoes making it hard to tell what one is what. Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

while i cant find the Full Dow list of tornado max wind speed there is this.

https://cpaess.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/documents/2016/Humphrey_CSWR_NSF-Radar-Tornado-2012-1126fp.pdf https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0434%282002%29017%3C0456%3AROOTMO%3E2.0.CO%3B2 https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WAF-D-12-00019.1

all i know is somewhere out there ... might be over 15+ possible EF5 tornadoes however i never knew what one's but a few are show here also wow a tornado bigger then el reno and mulhall at around 4+ mile's wide this big boy had winds of 215+ mph so thats one for the list, along with 2 more.

Off topic that 4 mile wide measurement one should be put in the record list, also reason why i seem to have issue editing is mostly to do with my darn pc. Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

and i found the windspeed for the manchester tornado of 95 meters per second it seems https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1059&context=ge_at_pubs Joshoctober16 (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

"Officially rated below F5/EF5/not rated, but rating is disputed" category

The officially rated below F5/EF5 category is being abused. The Enhanced Fujita scale is based on damage indicators, not DOW wind speed measurements. Tornadoes such as Dodge City 2016 and Hill City 2005 have never been considered at F5 strength by any reliable sources. Having tornadoes like these on the article takes away from actual disputed underrated tornadoes, such as Vilonia 2014 and Kellerville 1995.

--TornadoList2016 (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

hm i kind of agree and disagree the same time , i mean for example the vilonia and kellerville have alot more to them , alot fit with the damage of a EF5 compared to the for example Dodge City one, However by this logic el reno might be removed , and the just by wind thing is not that they couldn't do EF5 damage , imagen if every official EF5 happen in the middle of nowhere's... if im correct only 3 would stay as F5/EF5, and a other strange problem for the talk about damage section for the for example dodge city talks about it likely being a EF5 if it didn't hit nothing , there is something that i wanted to do for the past year but probably everyone might start yelling at me for this suggestion.Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Now what i mean is i feel that removing them and just keeping that way feels wrong both ways... i feel we should sub categorize them , its been done for dwarf planets that are not official https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_dwarf_planets , a other thing is this https://extremeplanet.me/2012/09/09/the-indefinitive-list-of-the-strongest-tornadoes-ever-recorded-part-ii/ scroll down before the comments, kind of like a check list and if the tornado has one of them it gets 1 point for it example(house swept away +1 ground scouring +1 objects being trown far +1 = 3).Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

And now for a other problem in general, they never say its rated EF5 , however clearly talks about full on EF5 damage , 2 tornadoes have this problem and arnt on here , the 2 giant 2+ mile wide EF3 after greensburg and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Rochelle%E2%80%93Fairdale,_Illinois_tornado tornado , both swept away a strong well built frame house with anchored bolts , and the illinoise one swept more then 1 framehouse that were bult good , the offical damage rating is at 200 mph as well , it did severe ground scouring and alot of other signs of EF5 damage , and i feel like the 2 greensburg wedge rating to make no sense , a well bult home swept away but rated EF3... thats not how the EF scale works, so what do we do about them 2?Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Have to state on correction of what i said , it wasnt the 2 mile wide second wedge of that day but was the 3 one seen here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=36002 stating this with only a EF3 rating makes no sense at all.Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Ratings are assigned by trained meteorologists. While the system isn't perfect, it generally works pretty well. Was the house poorly made? Was it a modular home or unanchored to the foundation? These things all matter. I believe for the purpose of this article, only tornadoes that are considered "possible F5s" by reputable sources should be added. A reputable source would be a well known meteorologist such as Grazulis, the NCDC, or a NWS office. The "possible F5" status will need to be outright said in the reference provided. A DOW wind speed measurement of over 200mph does not automatically make a tornado a candidate for EF5. --TornadoList2016 (talk) 03:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

its not the 200 mph thing , infact all but 2 to 1 of the tornadoes in here litterly says likely/possible F5/EF5 if you look into them , would it be more fitten of a possible and likely split for the category? this is something i wish for , it would be awkward to ignore some sort of tornado having wind measurement of 336 mph throwing a car a mile away and producing ground scouring that is just rated EF3 and not one of the well known meteorologist say its a likely EF5 and just say possible.Joshoctober16 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

and as for your dodge city one look here https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=641029 one of the 2 tornadoes in here sorta not stated as a possible tornado is the Seward 215 mph possible 4 mile wide one and a other one that it seems no one talks about except for one person but could be one of the strongest tornado ever and is for sure the strongest in the unofficial ones.Joshoctober16 (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(←) I don't think that the purpose of this article should be to list every tornado that was capable of producing F5 damage. It will get out of hand very quickly. I think the "possible F5" category should be for tornadoes that arguably produced F5 damage, or the tornado is listed by at least one source as an F5. The El Reno tornado of 2013 is a special case, as the WFO in Norman gave it a preliminary EF5 rating, and it was later downgraded. --TornadoList2016 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

If you want my two cents on the matter, tornadoes that are officially below F5/EF5 should only be listed here if a reputable source explicitly states that the tornado was or was possibly an F5/EF5. Adding a tornado to this list based on a source that only mentions a a wind speed might violate WP:NOR. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I second this. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

what about a tornado they state is the likely the strongest tornado ever but never states EF5 however states its way above most other EF5 and that there is almost no mention of it anywhere? or this strange issue https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/stormevents/eventdetails.jsp?id=36002 if im correct a slab clean by debries and rated EF3 is only for poorly built homes with no anchored bolts , however states a strong welt built home was swept away??? was the wording a mistake? or was it gonna be rated EF4+ but they put the wrong number?Joshoctober16 (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I would not object to the one you linked in a previous comment because of the explicit mention. There is nothing strange about your second link. A well-built home can be destroyed by anything EF3 and higher. It takes /above average/ construction for an EF5. There are certain constructural tidbits/flaws/etc that surveyors are privy to, so we should never be in the business of adding a tornado just because it wiped a house clean. Explicit mentions of EF5 candidates only, and strictly from reliable sources. I will go through the list some time soon and remove those that don't fit that criteria. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:25, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(There's another problem with the category, but I'll save that for a sequel thread. First, my thoughts on this problem.) I think part of the problem is that since the 1990's, with the increased use of Doppler, came the idea of rating tornadoes by wind speeds OR damage intensity. Some could have thought the F5 rated for the 1999 Moore tornado was partly due the Doppler recorded wind speeds. However, after doing some more reading on this, I think the NOAA/NWS/SPC (at least from 2013 onward anyways) have made it clear that the Enhanced Fujita scale is a "damage intensity scale" only, and should not be used the same way as the Saffir–Simpson hurricane wind scale which seem to have it's own set problems. That's one of the reasons why the 2013 El Reno tornado rating was lowered, the only (usable) indicator proving it an EF5 was Doppler wind measurements. (Also there's no way to prove the wind calculations from Doppler is 100% accurate.) I hate to say it, but it may be best to put less focus on wind speeds (or non at all) and more on the damage indicators from the damage surveys.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"Officially rated below F5/EF5/not rated, but rating is disputed" category: Part II

There's another problem with the category as it currently is. It's supposed to be for storm that are officially rated below F5/EF5 but the rated as disputed or is not rated but are giving an estimated rating of either an "possible F5/EF5" or has an estimated F5/EF5 rating disputed by approved reputable sources/agencies. The problem is the U.S. tornadoes of Pre-1950; some of the tornadoes listed in the category are not actually in dispute, but just simply has either Dr. Thomas P. Grazulis or NCDC\NCEI as an source reference but not both. This does not seem take into account any acceptance or listings by NOAA/NWS/SPC archives and websites. Also just because only one of any of the above (or just of such experts like Prof. Fujita, Dr. Forbes, etc.) is used doesn't mean it's in dispute but that the others haven't referenced it. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to properly sort though the article, and will be too busy to do so for quiet some time. I'll do what I can (when I can -- if I can re-rent Grazulis from the library). If anyone else want to sort though it as well they can. Thank You.--Halls4521 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

yes this is a other problem , tornadoes before 1950 its not realy that they are dispute its more that the main NOAA site dosent officially rate any tornadoes before that year.... however oddly if im correct i saw in one paper oddly include one i think in 1947 in woodward as F5 , i wasn't sure what to do about that one, a other thing is while the EF scale is only a damage scale thing is well complicated... first of all the TORRO scale is stated to be a WINDSPEED scale , and the old F scale is a damage and wind speed scale if im correct , the EF scale was originally gonna be a Wind scale , and then tornadoes before the el reno tornado were sorta considered be allowed to use wind speed measurements for scale , as seen with 2011 el reno tornado , and they are planning to update the EF scale i think in 2021, one of there plans is allow DOW measurements to be included, a other thing is we are all kind of waiting for the updated books for Sig tornadoes to come out , will cover tornadoes from the past all the way to 2019 , ive wondered if any one would one day ask if Grazulis would ever speek on what would be a good way for what tornadoes to not or to be added for a likely dispute or possible F5 tornado list, ive seen sometimes people ask questions on twitter so its not impossible, also the only thing in this talk realy bothering me is the fact some one says a well built home being swept clean is only EF3 damage , not a poorly built or average house but a well built one, ive never herd anything stating this anywhere for official ratings.Joshoctober16 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Alot of problem and questions.

This whole page is giving me alot of stress now because of how strick it is to add disputed F5 , Trying so hard to make this page perfect but keep having it be on hold because i keep having to add more proof that its disputed , fact that some pages just vanish's and now stating you cant bring any proof from so call blogs even tough it is own by a meteorologist that put out well out info for EF5 , now stating only NWS page when the remove tornadoes page is just the smallest info or no info at all. Ive been wondering is there any way to contact any real surveyer's so we can have questions that would stop this page's mess. yes some i understand the reasoning the removal of .. until the removal of May 12,2004 and May 4,2003 alot of talk for disputed rating , nws for one dosnt even have info for and the other tornado is very limited. let me start with this let me be simple and say is this a meteorologist or not? if it isn't probably should report the so call blog , if it is then the 2003 tornado should stay. and for a second person that never realy got a not approval or approval storm chaser for sure unsure if a meteorologist or not would be nice to have a closer on this guy , also states the 2003 and 2004 were likely in the strongest. a other big question is , tornadoes that sorta never state it is not or is dispute by nws but overall every storm chasers state should of been f5. i remember somewhere for the 2003 from nws about the possibility of a f5 rating however that page i think is gone. 2003 ks tornado got i think added and remove more then 5+ times showing we never realy got a good agreement yet. the nws only reason is something i for sure do not want for the list, they do not like to re rate tornadoes higher or lower if its a few years too old, a other thing is i feel we shouldn't remove all the tornadoes with alot of proof of f5 damage that happend 1990 to today , reason why we are waiting for the books from tom. it also feels very wrong to look at dodge city staying here because nws states it when no one else does , but the 2003 tornado everyone else states it but the nws , its making me want to remove all the dispute rating. sorry if this feels like a rant but its become very hard to manage when its stated from one page that has to vanish and then some user here removes it because there is no longer proof, ive updated and clean this page alot.Joshoctober16 (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The more I think about this list, the more I agree with the last sentence of your paragraph in that I think this page should only list confirmed (E)F5 cases. I see some benefit to adding potential cases, but on the other hand, you could probably find credible sources that dispute every rating for every tornado. It's too ambiguous. 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I rather this page remove or able to add a source that isnt NWS , a source that can state it might of been rated F5 even if its been YEARS, nws cant rate tornadoes after i think 3 months , this huge flaw is the main reason i dislike The F/ EF scale and so do alot of people they rated some tornadoes that seem weak to f5 and ignored some of the strongest tornadoes ever like the texas f4 in 1990 june , this one tornado is so incredible and so forgotten , after reading it im shock there able to keep the 5 in the scale , every tornado rated base on scouring of the ground , scouring of concrete , and throwing objects would litterly have to be rated under f4, Joplin , plainsfeild , Philadelphia and a other f5 in 1990 go rated on stuff that they did mostly around or even weaker then this texas 1990 tornado , NWS seems to have not survey'd it as well i find it very emberresing to continue having this page or having the joplin tornado as EF5 without this texas 1990 Tornado joplin mostly got rated by throwing cars over a mile away , this texas tornado trew something way over 90 tons over 3 miles AND up a hill of 600+ feet high. This is the only Pre 2000 tornado i feel evrey other meteorologist kind of have no clue about , limited info , you will notice its the only one listed here that is still pending, just think for one minute about the F or EF scale , its a damage scale , and tornadoes got rated f5 for doing a certen damage , when one did that damage i think by 200 times worser and got rated lower , infact i am worried of anyone removing this one tornado and seeing you remove 2 disputed tornado that seem to have alot of proof going for them made me more worried , its the reason i came and cleaned up and fix up the page alot, i rather this page to be remove to not be super missleading f scale has caused too much forum wars , just note ive seen i think people threaten tim marshal somwheres just cause of the 2014 tornado rating. so it migth be best to remove this page or keep the big disputed tornadoes. again sorry if this seems like a rant , the 2014 tornado internet war ive seen somwhere is the reason i seem quite panicish about this topic.Joshoctober16 (talk) 12:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

A few things to note. No, we cannot incorporate unreliable, non-NWS sourcing into the list. It doesn't matter what's talked about on weather forums. This isn't a page for rampant speculation. I would also like to point out that NWS ratings are based on a full/thorough review of damage points. Rest assured, they didn't ignore anything. As I stated in my last post though, the whole situation could be avoided by just listing confirmed (E)F5 tornadoes, because you can find a reliable source disputing just about any tornado I would imagine. There's a reason we also don't list "disputed" Cat 5s in the hurricane list. Thoughts, @United States Man:, @TornadoInformation12:, @TornadoLGS:, @Cyclonebiskit:, @Juliancolton:, @MarioProtIV:, et al? 🌧❄ϟ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I'm afraid this is beginning to spiral out of control. The problems are who's a reliable expert, who's/what's a reliable source, what's in dispute (and why), the differences between the scale (F-scale/EF-scale/TORRO-scale), should we list Pre-1950 storms, and should we only list confirmed/official ratings. I think someone brought this up some months back. I'm now kind of torn between keeping any disputed/possible ratings and how to resolve this.--Halls4521 (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm on board with cutting out non-officials (E)F5s, this includes removing Grazulis-rated tornadoes. At present this list is completely out of control. A text section could be used to mention that there are many tornadoes with disputed ratings. Maybe make special mention of a few tornadoes that have numerous official/reliable sources stating it to be (E)F5, but don't have it in the table. This will help avoid making this article a dumping ground for speculations. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm good with the above as well, but maybe we keep the ones that have been very high-end (E)F4 with a possibility of (E)F5 (there isn't that much) but damage surveys left it unable to. This could include very high-end (E)F4s with DOW measurements in the EF5 range with something like had it struck more areas it very well might have been (E)F5. I don't know but thats my opinion. --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree. There is so much possibility for circumstantial and coincidental evidence in damage surveys that I think we should keep just confirmed (E)F5s and tornadoes with a reliable DOW measurement of EF5 wind speeds. There's just way too much room for error in damage surveys. Tornadotom666 (talk) 01:57, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Weak disagree, on only certain tornadoes: Grazulis is widely considered a reliable expert, particularly on pre-1970 tornadoes (remember, Ted Fujita didn't start rating until c.1970, and the NWS didn't start until after the '74 Super Outbreak; Grazulis's retrospective work is pretty much the only reliable source on pre-1950 tornadoes and on many pre-1974 ones that the NWS didn't think were worth going back to rate retrospectively). I'd keep the Grazulis-rated ones, the ones listed as F5/EF5 in the NWS memo but not in Storm Data, the very high-end (E)F4s and probably El Reno 2013 as a unique case (as it was briefly rated EF5 by NWS until being re-downgraded after what I hear were pretty much knife fights at NSSL and WFO Norman over it); prune the others. Include a text section stating that there are a number of other disputed claims, but also mention why they're not listed; specifically point out that the F and EF scales aren't supposed to be based on wind speed measurements, but on damage, with the speeds being rough estimate ranges based on engineering analysis. rdfox 76 (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There are certainly too many unofficial/possible F5/EF5 tornadoes on the list. But I don't think we should have a blanket ban on them. Since the F/EF scales are rather subjective, we should not treat the NWS assessments as infallible. The expertise of Grazulis is generally well-respected among the community, and his work in tornado history is an excellent resource. At the very least, we should retain his assessments. I'm on the fence about whether wind speed measurements should be included. The F/EF scales are damage scales rather than wind scales, but there are some tornadoes that experts have referred to as F5/EF5 based on such measurements, such as El Reno and Red Rock, Oklahoma. El Reno, in particular, is controversial, though I have a doubt or two about including it. If we choose not to include tornadoes on the basis of wind measurements, we should find a source to state that many, if not most tornadoes capable of producing F5/EF5 damage fail to do so. Whatever unofficial ratings we choose to include (if we include any), I suggest we go back to the old format of this list, with a separate table for unofficial/possible F5/EF5 tornadoes. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Splitting could work but also a other issue is , a official EF5 but its dispute part... what about that one? There is something i found once , that one surveyor found NO proof of any EF5 damage in any tornado of 2007-today however it was on my old pc and i lost it , if i do find it again what the heck are we gonna do about that? it would mean there is not one official EF5 tornado that isnt disputed, if any one know what paper im talking about please try to post it here. a other thing that bothers me is this , if the rating time limit wasn't a thing in the ef scale , yes that's a thing and the big flaw that makes a lot of drama with the EF scale , is that there is one tornado that would be put in the official status , from 1998 once tougth to be a very long track f5 is found out to be 2 different tornadoes , but cant upgrade the second one just because it didn't happen a few days ago. as for a possible unofficial list we could do something close to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_possible_dwarf_planets#Brown's_assessment , no one seems to have a problem with the dwarf planet possible list, a other thing to note is grazulis list is gonna stop after this year , its his last year he will add for the updated book that will be release in 2021-2024 , the 1994-2019 part for the dispute or not is kind of on hold cause of this,also the ef scale is just a damage scale part , it was originally gonna be a wind scale i herd , and the updated 2021 scale will include radar measurements i herd.Joshoctober16 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

We used to note whether a tornado's F5/EF5 status was disputed. If this surveyor's dispute of all EF5 ratings turns up, we'll take a look and see if it is actually a reliable source. However, if we're setting a high standard for whose assessments we accept for possible F5/EF5 tornadoes, I suggest we set a similarly high standard for claims that dispute F5/EF5 status. For the time being, since the EF scale is a damage scale, we will stick with that for now. If the scale is updated to include radar measurements, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. An another note, a few times you've mentioned a three-month time limit for rating changes. Do you have a source for that? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That statement was from 3 different things , a forum talk about it , This and a statement from el reno tornado and i think i once herd rainsville as well? will try to find where i herd the el reno one and the rest.Joshoctober16 (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see a mention of the time limit in the article you linked to, unless it has been edited since then. TornadoLGS (talk) 00:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

1091 London tornado

RandomIntrigue I won't revert again so as to avoid edit warring, but it seems we should discuss the inclusion of the 1091 London tornado here. I don't think TORRO scale wind speed estimates for a T8 tornado should be used as a basis for including tornadoes as the TORRO scale has similar estimates of wind speed-damage relationships as the Fujita scale. This means that the TORRO scale overestimates the wind speeds of strong tornadoes to a similar degree as the Fujita scale. TORRO scale wind speed estimates, therefore, should not be compared to those of the Enhanced Fujita scale. Consider that, on the original Fujita scale, all F4 tornadoes and even some high-end F3 tornadoes have had estimated winds greater than 200 mph, but we don't consider those tornadoes for inclusion on that basis. We should adopt the same approach for the TORRO scale and consider only T11, T10, and perhaps some T9 tornadoes for inclusion. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe so, but that still doesn't divert the fact that the tornado is equal to and EF5. By not including it because you've found faults with the original scale, you're bastardising the page. I wonder, if we're going to change the meanings ourselves, why such a page should even exist? RandomIntrigue (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The thing is, I don't think it is equal to an EF5 tornado. Again, do you mean to imply that every F4 tornado on record was also equivalent to EF5? The rating for the London tornado is a damage-derived wind estimate from a scale that uses different standards for estimating wind speeds than the Enhanced Fujita scale. Therefore they are not equivalent. If we are comparing ratings that are based on damage, then damage, not estimated wind speed, should be the basis for comparison. If we are to use wind speed to assess older tornadoes on the Enhanced Fujita scale, then only measured wind speeds should apply. Even then, using quoted wind speeds to assess a tornado as EF5 without the source itself suggesting an EF5 rating would violate WP:SYNTH. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I consider that rating fairly dubious in any event; building standards were not yet defined in any way that would allow realistic derivation of the wind strength from damage, and on top of that, given it predates any form of photographic evidence, we're relying solely on narrative descriptions of the damage done, which has always been considered rather unreliable. Think about how often you'll hear someone say that a building was "completely blown away, gone" in the aftermath of a tornado... only to find out that it suffered borderline EF2/EF3 damage leaving it beyond repair, but definitely not swept away completely enough to qualify for EF5 status. Given that the next tornado to receive an F5-equivalent rating was a T11 over 650 years later, but since that one, Europe seems to be averaging about 50 years between F5-equivalent tornadoes, it really makes me doubtful that one could accurately issue a high-end rating to tornado damage from before about 1750, even in Europe. (Also note that Grazulis rarely gives violent ratings to tornadoes without photographic documentation of the damage, and that NWS decided to set their rating cutoff at 1950, due to relatively unreliable reporting of damage before that date...) rdfox 76 (talk) 23:48, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Wind speed measurements

There has already been some discussion about removing some or most of the unofficial/possible F5/EF5 tornadoes from this list. I think the first bunch we should address are tornadoes added on the basis of wind speed measurements. Checking the sources, it seems at least a few tornadoes are included solely on the basis of Doppler radar indicating wind speeds in the F5 or EF5 range, but the cited source does not actually mention anything about F5 or EF5 intensity. It seems to me, though, that listing a tornado here based on reported wind speeds is WP:SYNTH unless the source explicitly states that the tornado was or may have been F5/EF5. Normally I would be bold and just remove these tornadoes, but given this article's history I think it should be discussed here before starting an edit war. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

i was gonna come here and recommend something , and its about if we should make a new section for tornadoes with 201+ mph and if we should rename this whole page? , i mean it says F5 and EF5 but what about the T scale? and a other alternate way to approach this is should we rename it into the strongest tornadoes or something like that? a other thing to note is the el reno tornado and dodge city tornado , it isnt mention on here but , ive found proof of both doing some ground scouring (el reno was in 2 small spots) and the dodge city while didnt do ground scouring where the 200+ mph winds were , near the end of its life did some severe ground scouring sadly it was too far away from Dow at that point.Joshoctober16 (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it sort of goes against the point of the page: that these are top-of-the scale tornadoes, so it is in the same spirit as pages like List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes. It also gets tricky since most of the tornadoes on this list did not have their winds measured. Simply going by a list of the strongest tornadoes would be too subjective and would make the debate of which tornadoes to include or exclude even more of a can of worms. It would interesting to see the evidence of ground scouring from El Reno and Dodge city and could be worth mentioning in the article. I'll note though, that I had read that ground scouring near El Reno was caused by flooding. TornadoLGS (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

paper on the dodge city tornado here https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/MWR-D-18-0125.1 , the problem is what tornado is what.... 3 tornadoes did some ground scouring , what makes no sense its that on the paper it shows up as tornado number 9... and 10 and that they are both rated EF1 , however noaa event database shows it as One long track EF2 , the area of scouring is at image e, a other thing is the tornado they mostly talk about in this page tornado number 4 did some severe ground scouring along with winds at 179 to 200 mph but it was stated that they found out that the tornadoes wind speed appeared to have been slowed down by the debries , however it kept its damage potental at the same , for example imagen a 190 mph tornado getting alot of debries slowing it down to 170 mph , however it is still able to do the same 190 mph damage , im wondering if this means if this tornado might of been a EF5 as well but its hard to tell. Joshoctober16 (talk) 02:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

as for el reno tornado ground scouring it can be found here https://apps.dat.noaa.gov/stormdamage/damageviewer/ , very hard to find but , there are 2 spots of ground scouring noted they both have a ef rating of N/A showing up as a red circle with a X in it , also interestingly i notice the shape of the damage path of this tornado has changed again , and it went from EF3 to EF5 to EF3 and now went sometime this year too EF3+ so that is a interesting new thing i notice about it.Joshoctober16 (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rochelle

We need to add the EF4 that hit Rochelle and Fairdale, Illinois, on April 9, 2015. Its rating is heavily disputed by many. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gio52903 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to back up this rating being disputed? Keep in mind that there is some consensus on this page that we should be cutting down on possible F5/EF5 tornadoes on this page. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

even if you can not find evidence from some one per say i still wonder if we should add tornadoes with damage rating of 200 mph , there were 2 tornadoes like this but recently one went down to 180 mph , however rochelle has alot of spots of well built homes with 200 mph damage points assign , a other thing is that when looking at the old wind speed damage for the EF scale it was 200 mph and not 201 mph ish , i was wondering if there are any tornadoes with 200 mph damage point but are for some reason still EF4 should be added here? , moore tornado is 200 mph for more then half of its EF5 damage points all of this is from here im talking about and here for the 200 mph EF5 start bound , note there is a difference of wind measurement and a damage assign with the likely wind speed , however i think this is the only tornado with a 200 mph damage right now.Joshoctober16 (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Adding a tornado on that basis would be considered synthesis, which is not allowed. No tornado should be included in this list unless a cited source explicitly states that it is a (possible) F5/EF5. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the old format

Until 2013, this article had separate tables for official and unofficial F5/EF5 tornadoes before we changed to our current, color-coded format. In hindsight, I think that was a mistake as it implies that the F5/EF5 status of these tornadoes is on equal footing, when it isn't. I think we should reformat this list to something resembling the pre-2013 format. My current thought is to have three tables; official F5/EF5 tornadoes 1950-present, possible F5/EF5 tornadoes 1950-present, and pre-1950 F5/EF5 tornadoes. Like before, these tables would include a notes column, which will include whether the F5 status is disputed. This reformatting could be done as part of cutting down on unofficial tornadoes listed here. TornadoLGS (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Since everyone has been WP:SILENT I will go ahead with reorganizing this article if I don't hear anything by tomorrow. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the current format is a mess. I was just looking at it a couple weeks ago. Go ahead :). United States Man (talk) 05:22, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Continuing cleanup

I have reformatted how these tornadoes are sorted and removed a few tornadoes for which the provided sources did not support an F5 rating. A few other tornadoes rely mostly on offline sources, and I'm hoping someone can dig up information on them for verification. There seems to be contradictory information about the two 1984 Soviet Union tornadoes, and I would like to find more reliable sources for the potential F5 status of the San Justo and Bulahdelah tornadoes. While this has been brought up before, I also would like to know where one might track down a copy of F5-F6 Tornadoes by Grazulis for verification. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about either of these, but there's one question that's been nagging me for a while. Why, in the table, do we identify individual raters (i.e., not SPC/NWS/NCDC) by first name and middle initial, instead of either by full name or just by last name? It just seems rather odd to me for tornadoes that, everywhere else in the table, would refer to "Grazulis," "Fujita," or "Wurman" would suddenly refer to them in that last column as "Thomas P.," "Tetsuya T.," and "Joshua." rdfox 76 (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

No clue. I was considering eliminating that column entirely, but I wanted to keep track of which unofficial F5s were in the NCDC memo or mentioned by the NWS. TornadoLGS (talk) 05:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What counts as official

Currently, the article lists all pre-1950 F5 tornadoes as having no official rating, primarily based on ratings assigned by Fujita or Grazulis. But, some of these tornadoes are mentioned as F5 by either NWS pages or the NCDC memorandum, even though they are not listed in SPC records or the NCDC database. In a few cases, tornadoes listed as F4 in official databases are listed as F5 in the NCDC memorandum. Do these ratings count as being "official" in any way, even if they don't appear or are listed under different ratings in official databases? TornadoLGS (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Per the NWS, there are no "official" ratings for any tornadoes prior to 1 January 1950. Presumably, tornadoes mentioned on NWS pages and/or the NCDC memo as being F5 before that date are cases where it's an unofficial, but accepted rating. rdfox 76 (talk) 03:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

And I take it tornadoes listed as F5 in the memo but F4 or lower in NWS records also don't count as official? TornadoLGS (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. --Halls4521 (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

1984 Soviet Union tornado outbreak

It would seem both of the main tornadoes in this article have ratings that are disputed. It seems that several experts disagree on whether these two tornadoes are F4 or F5. However, the ESWD rates both tornadoes as high-end F4's. And yet, the TORRO rating is the equivalent to an F5 for one and an F4 for the other. Will need to be straighten out and noted for this and all related/connected articles. Thanks.--Halls4521 (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

section for Unoffical list

just making this section to make it easy to post possible ef5 tornado links.

well lets start with this one https://books.google.ca/books?id=bUuzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA114&lpg=PA114&dq=Washington-Goldsby+Tornado+ef5&source=bl&ots=SbObDctm9-&sig=ACfU3U0Xv858WQm5kMiwL4vW9khPG6KSdg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXkIvFy7_nAhVJmVkKHTT_Dcw4ChDoATAEegQIChAB#v=onepage&q=Washington-Goldsby%20Tornado%20ef5&f=false

Tuscaloosa-Birmingham april 27 2011 (some surveyers gaved a EF5 rating)

Chickasha-Blanchard-Newcastle may 24 2011 (alot of 200 mph di spots)

Washington-Goldsby may 24 2011 (i notice this one was removed but its stated to be EF5 in this book, also alot of 200 mph di spots)

El Reno may 31 2013 (EF5 winds hit nothing)

Vilonia april 27 2014 (interestingly... acording to the tookkit site they gave one house a EF5 rating , but didnt want to give a EF5 rating just because of one home... so ya kinda breaking the rules i find.)

more will be posted in a bit Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

https://ams.confex.com/ams/92Annual/flvgateway.cgi/id/19926?recordingid=19926

 states Chickasha-Blanchard-Newcastle and Washington-Goldsby Tornadoes would of for sure been rated F5 on the old scale and both were debated as possible EF5.

 Note they mostly called called them the 2 EF4 south of the EF5 el reno tornado. Joshoctober16 (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I viewed that video and considered it before removing the Goldsby tornado. The video raises some questions, but does not explicitly state that it would have been rated F5, though in my opinion it probably would have. I can't view the book right now for some reason, and before using it as a reference, I'd want to know exactly what it says. Most of the other points are already covered in the page, but I did add the note about Vilonia. TornadoLGS (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Any thoughts about removing the Edmonton tornado from the list, or at-least updating it? The reference sited is not currently online anymore. FreakShow91V2 (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'd hope to find a reliable source referring to it as a possible F5 to keep it in. A quick google search doesn't seem to turn up anything, however. It makes me wonder how much of the F5 hype around the Edmonton tornado is just Internet popular opinion, which counts for squat. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

https://ral.ucar.edu/sites/default/files/public/events/2014/dia-atc-and-faa-safety-and-operations/docs/dia-2014-wurman-kosiba.pdf

I found this link and it states that the Stuttgart 2008 tornado was a "DOW EF-5." Page 25. Vortex4020 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Edmonton and Bulahdelah tornadoes

So, recently, @MNSTORMGUY: removed the 1987 Edmonton tornado from the list, but was reverted. I was already iffy on including it with the current source, since the only reference is a now dead link that went to, what appears to be, a personal blog. Perhaps it should be removed if a better source cannot be found. The sourcing we currently have for the Bulahdelah tornado is also questionable; one of them only says "I have been told of a tornado with a possible F5 intensity smashed through Bulahdelah..." TornadoLGS (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

if EC stated this then it should stay , not sure what to say about the bulahdelah tornado for now.Joshoctober16 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

We would need a source pointing to such a statement from EC. TornadoLGS (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@TornadoLGS: Try asking them directly about it. (i.e. email)ChessEric (talk · contribs) 16:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

1666 Tornado

@TornadoLGS: @Vortex4020: @ChessEric: @Tornado chaser: @Phoenix7777: @LightningComplexFire:

I've recently seen on the TORRO website, the strongest British tornado is no longer the 1091 London tornado. See this link: https://www.torro.org.uk/research/tornadoes/extremes#MostIntenseTornado In 1666, a tornado has been given a rating of T8-T9. This would give windspeeds of 213-269 mph, which would be equivalent to a strong F4/ weak F5 tornado. Should this be included in the list? RandomIntrigue (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomIntrigue: That is an interesting and nice find! Wind speeds would indeed make it a possible F5 tornado. However, I would like a second opinion on this. Thoughts @TornadoInformation12, CapeVerdeWave, Ionmars10, United States Man, and Cyclonebiskit:? ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If it's a possible F5 via conversion from the Torro scale it's worth including. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@ChessEric: Thanks for replying and tagging the appropriate editors! I wasn't sure who best to tag, so thanks for your help! RandomIntrigue (talk) 01:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

@RandomIntrigue: Your welcome! ChessEric (talk · contribs) 20:06, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The recent tornadoes that have possible EF5 intensity that could have done EF5 Damage

We have seen them on radar before an the debris signature an we knew this was bad but I think most of these were at EF5 intensity an even the centerville tornado had vecloties at 292mph like 3000 feet up. TornadoLGS obviously you know still on how bad the damage was like many of these were high end EF4’s or EF3’s but how many exactly are we talking about? Well the ones that had peak winds of 190mph were April27th, 2011 Tuscaloosa/Birmingham, Alabama EF4 Tornado, Mayflower/Vilonia, Arkansas EF4 Tornado, Bassfield/Soso, Mississippi EF4 Tornado, Mayfield/Benton, Kentucky EF4 Tornado, Chapman, Kansas EF4 Tornado, etc. Their are just too many too count on the possibility of them sustaining really bad damage to structures which could have been EF5 Damage. Colin777724 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, EF5 intensity is plausible for almost any tornado rated high-end EF4, and the incidence for tornadoes capable of causing EF5 damage is much higher than tornadoes actually being rated EF5 (see, for example this paper, already cited in this article). The issue with adding tornadoes to this list mainly comes down to verifiability. From your previous edit, I am aware of speculation of the Rochelle, Bassfield, and Mayfield tornadoes reaching EF5, but not from any reliable source. Out of curiosity, I did a quick search of the Centerville and Jonesboro tornadoes, but the most I could find were comments on Twitter. This is the first I'm hearing of 292 mph from Centerville. TornadoLGS (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh yea 100% agree with what you said the true intensity an damage from these tornadoes in the past were under estimated for sure, but the problem was that their was too much damage to fully survey due to how widespread it actually was. Like trying to find every single corner of where the tornado actually inflicted damage is really hard an that’s one of the reasons why we haven’t seen an EF5 tornado being rated yet. Mostly it seems assuming to me but also looking really close at the details of what the damage was from the tornado. But either way Mother Nature is Mother Nature an we can’t control Mother Nature. She controls the weather an that’s the best I can sum it up. Colin777724 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I do suspect there were some policy changes behind closed doors at the NWS, but I'd rather not discuss it further per WP:NOTFORUM, unless there's a source to be included here. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

so uh for mayfeild , there is one privated video that mentions that it would of likely been rated EF5 if it hit better built buildings... but a few days ago this video came up even state its similar to some EF5 , and that it likely was stronger , also states evidence may arise to push it into EF5 catagory , so i think theres at least enough evidence to put mayfeild in the disputed list (also its by noaa) Joshoctober16 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at that tomorrow. It's a long video, I'm tired, and another article needs my attention at the moment. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess we can all agree that Tornadoes can be different from each other in terms of strength, size, speed, an impact Colin777724 (talk) 06:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Listed As possible EF5 new source

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnP49gfGvA4 (2:04:00) (goldsby and newcastle EF4 same day) https://twitter.com/NWSGoodland/status/742119924580028416 bakersfeild , stated by nws it self https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LW1drKEmt2U Mayfield

and im not sure why goldsby got removed in the past since there were source for it. Joshoctober16 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible F5/EF5/IF5/T10 Section Clean-up Discussions

Recently, TornadoLGS did some cleanup on the section, and it is very apparent from past discussions that some tornadoes need to be discussed about removal/addition to the list. The best course of action would be to have a discussion about the current list and probably dictate that a discussion take place for any future additions to the list, that way, controversy can be diminished now and in the future. Because this discussion is going to be a very long discussion, I have begun Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion as a location specifically for discussions about the currently list and any tornadoes that should be added now or anytime in the future. Because this painful and much needed discussion was going to be so large, I broke it out of the normal talk page. Please see that section (Talk:List of F5 and EF5 tornadoes/Discussion) to discuss any tornadoes that are currently on the chart, should be added to the chart, or should be removed from the chart. Elijahandskip (talk) 02:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)