text:
Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak

Awful weather writing
Let's stick to the first paragraph. Quote-

"This one tornado alone inflicted 695 fatalities, more than twice as many as the second deadliest, the Great Natchez, Mississippi Tornado of May 7, 1840. The 151 to 235 mi (243 to 378 km) track left by the tornado was the longest ever recorded in the world, as it crossed from southeastern Missouri, through southern Illinois, then into southwestern Indiana."

GAH!

Suggested edit

"The tornado killed 695 people, twice as many as the second deadliest in US history. The track length, estimated at up to 235 miles, is the longest ever recorded worldwide. The tornado followed a path from SE Missouri across S Illinois and into SW Indiana."

Comment - tornadoes are no persons. They do not "inflict fatalities". They kill people. The word inflict implies a will. You could say God inflicted the casualties, but you probably would not want to. You get the point. There is no need to list every last detail in a summary. The interested reader can discover for himself the 2nd deadliest event if he wishes. Twice means 2x or more. It does not mean 2x on the button. Things are not recorded in the world. They are recorded in history. Tornadoes to not cross - they produce tracks.

As you see, the hyperbolic, overly specific, and extremely purple nature of the prose accumulates usage and readability errors RAPIDLY, and it quickly becomes extremely tiresome to read these weather articles. It's not just this one article or set of authors - it is a general trend at Wiki that the articles about weather events are AWFULLY WRITTEN.

There is no point in a single person trying to straighten out such a mess. There needs to be an editorial board dedicated to factual and clearly stated information about weather events, stripped of hyperbolic language and high-school level usage whoppers.

Antimatter33 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

picture of the tornado?
Years ago, about 10 years ago, I found a old picture of the tornado itself! Yes, a picture was snapped of the tri-state tornado as it was crossing the Wabash river Indiana, but I havent been able to find the picture ever since (should of downloaded it). Does anyone know of it? It would be the only photo taken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maximus 100 (talk • contribs) 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe I found a picture of it from a web-site with a tornado history page and a image claiming to be it, considering the age (and time shown of the cars) it seems to be fairly legit especially with the site. Here is the website for reference, since I also don't know how to add a picture yet you may do the honors since you apparently found the picture first. ;)

http://library.thinkquest.org/04oct/01927/tornadohistory.htm User:Dobat 9 December, 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.153.202.174 (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that picture of the tornado is actually the Xenia, Ohio tornado taken during the Super Outbreak in April of 1974.--LK Thurisaz (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

LK Thurisaz, you are correct; that is the 1974 Xenia, Ohio tornado. That particular photo received wide distribution in the local and national press at the time of the '74 Super Outbreak. 72.0.15.8 (talk) 15:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

That picture is definitely not the Tri-State Tornado of 1925. The vehicles in the foreground are obviously not that old. God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.115.152 (talk) 20:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"Maximum" F5
That an F5 is the maximum is simply not true. From Fujita scale:

The gap between F0 and F1 corresponds to the eleventh and twelveth levels of the Beaufort scale, "violent storm" and "hurricane" respectively. Theoretically, the wind speeds for F11 and F12 correspond to Mach number 0.9 and 1.0 respectively

12 is the highest theorectical limit. I know we'll never get there, but F6 is not entirely out of the question. The infographic on that page even has it up. maximum implies the end. The highest it could be. Thats simply false. Saying that it reached F5, the highest level a tornado has thusfar been observed at, or something similer with less cumbersome writing would be fine. But the way it is worded now implies that the Fujita scale ends at F5. It does not. -AKMask 04:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It is true. Google any Fujita scale article from the SPC, NCDC, NOAA, Tornado Project, a university meteorology department, or other reputable sources (such as the Glossary of Meteorology):
 * "F1 on the Fujita scale is equal to B12 (73 mph) on the Beaufort

scale, which is the minimum windspeed required to upgrade a tropical storm to a hurricane. F12 on the Fujita scale is equal to M1 (738 mph) on the Mach numbers. Though the Fujita scale itself ranges up to F12, the strongest tornadoes max out in the F5 range (261 to 318 mph)."

 * Fujita connected Beaufort 12 (miniumum hurricane speed of 74 mph which is just under B12, more correctly) with F1 to Mach 1 using a formula: V = 6.30(F+2)1.5 m/s -->. It's just an open ended scale derived from the formula, similar to the Beaufort scale, his theoretical limit was not that high; he specifically designated F0-F5 as the actual damage and wind speed range. All tornadoes are rated this, none higher, it's impossible in the way the scale is defined. As for the Fujita scale article (which is being rewritten), check out the source linked for the part you quoted, as well as what else the article says:

 * "(F6 is not in use)"

 * "Relative frequency 	-"

 * Oh and if you're so concerned about changes, the appropriate, and cordial, action is to discuss it on a talk page first, not change the article (again). Evolauxia 16:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes it is not in use, but that doesn't mean it is non-existant. Im simply arguing that the wording, F5 being the max, is confusing in that it is wrong. It's not the maximum in the scale. It's the highest of any storm observed, but not the scales maximum. -AKMask 01:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * In actual ratings and the usable scale, as Fujita himself specifically designed it, and maintained throughout the years (through minor updates), as well as how it is utilised by users of the scale, F5 is the maximum. I made it clear. There is no need for the additional, it's impossible for damage to be above F5, and the wind speed ranges (specific values of which were just guesses) were designed to cover the maximum that would occur. There are various confusing and imperfect things about the scale, but the intent and actual use is irrefutable. It's not merely that above F5 hasn't occurred but that it won't because the way it's designed F5 is the maximum that can occur and the maximum that anything is ever rated.

 * To introduce elsewise is confusing and pseudoscientific. In the context of the development of the scale it is appropriate (hence my not refusing its mention in the F-scale article itself, and the rewrite of that will better explicate things), but not for actual tornadoes. Evolauxia 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I compromised from "maximum" to "maximum possible" to cover that Fujita had further subdivisions extrapolated from his formula, but these were never intended to be used and specifically were (and are) stated to not occur. F0-F5 is very clearly defined as the rating system, designed to encompass the wind speeds that actually occur, and F5 is the maximum possible damage that can occur. Evolauxia 06:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It still leaves, at least me, with the impression that thats where it stops... the wording I have in there shows that this is the higest rating ever recieved. What, exactly, is wrong with it? -AKMask 23:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

 * But the scale does stop there, the extension was just an academic exercise, never meant for use or "public release". To infer that there can be anything greater (as well as the specific wind speed ranges) is, nevertheless, one of the problems with the scale and why it is being upgraded. As for the wording now, it's cumbersome, unnecessary, and misleading because there are many other F5s and there can be nothing greater but it infers that there can be. The change to "maximum possible" mitigated the perceived problem that the scale does not end at F5 whilst succinctly saying that it was rated the maximum possible, which it was and is. Minimizing this problem as much as possible is the reason I (and tornado and damage experts) are so stalwart, I don't like being so unyielding on such a small thing as a few words, but it's necessary. We're both concerned about accuracy and clarity, but from differing perspectives; I've tried to explain decently well and with sources. Evolauxia 08:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The very fact that the scale does go higher eliminates the possiblity that F5 is as high as it goes. The scale *IS* cumbersome, I completely agree. The Saffir-Simpson scale only goes to Category 5, defined as a windspeed/damage profile and all speeds higher then that, but unfortunately, the Fujita scale does not do this. Instead, it continues up. I'm not implying that this wasnt an extremely intense, probly the most intense tornado ever. But to imply that the Fujita scale stops at 5 is demonstratably false. There is no possibility of the statement that F5 is the maximum is truthful. Our own article lists higher force ratings in its info-graphic, going to F6. You can say what you want about them being academic, and I agree with you. But to deny they exist is easily shown to be false. False information does not belong in an article. -AKMask 17:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There is no way to ascertain what was the strongest tornado, this isn't about this tornado as the strongest or one of the strongest, no such claims are made, it's about the Fujita scale and this tornadoes rating, which I've explicitly demonstrated the maximum possible rating is F5. Again, the wording maximum possible eliminates ambiguity and most accurately (and succinctly) guages the event, it denies nothing and states nothing false, quite the contrary. Evolauxia 02:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I researched, I'm pretty sure that, although the theoretical F1 to F12 scale corresponds to wind speeds, the operational F1 to F5 scale (or the new one, at least) is based on damages at those wind speeds, such that no tornado can be assigned anything higher than F5 damage. I'm not so sure about the "old" operational scale though. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I'd have to agree with AySz88. To my knowledge, the Fujita scale has always (operationally) been a damage scale, which makes arguing about the theoretical "speed limit" of these tornadoes merely academic. You can see from these two links from the National Weather Service, , the odds that they would designate a tornado as "F6" is basically zero, as there's absolutely no operational precedent for anything higher than an F5, where "incredible phenomena will occur." To get back to the heart of the argument, I'm not sure what the wording should be, but in my mind the odds that they would designate a tornado anything higher than an F5 are about the same odds that they would consider the Saffir-Simpson scale inadequate and designate a storm as a "hypercane." E WS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/#f-scale1 "So if the original F-scale winds are just guesses, why are they so specific? Excellent question. Those winds were arbitrarily attached to the damage scale based on 12-step mathematical interpolation between the hurricane criteria of the Beaufort wind scale, and the threshold for Mach 1 (738 mph). Though the F-scale actually peaks at F12 (Mach 1), only F1 through F5 are used in practice, with F0 attached for tornadoes of winds weaker than hurricane force. Again, F-scale wind-to-damage relationships are untested, unknown and purely hypothetical. They have never been proven and may not represent real tornadoes. F-scale winds should not be taken literally."

 * I doubt you intended it, but that quote advocates that the entire scale is theorecticle, and should not be used. If you seriously agree with that, just remove any reference to the speed. I prefer to stick to the truth. -AKMask 05:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, we're getting somewhere. It's just a paraphrase of what I've already said and what was available in the stuff I cited; it is not a wind speed scale, it's a damage scale. There can be no greater damage than F5, thus that is the maximum possible rating (and the scale is clearly defined as such). Evolauxia 08:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No, the new scale that comes of use in 2007 is defined as that. The older fujita scale is, as already shown, a 0-12 affair. We could, as somewhat poked at by me, just list it as F5 in the article, with a link back to Fujita scale. It would alleviate this whole mess. -AKMask 20:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You haven't considered or challenged what I've said or cited which contradicts your concerns and clearly shows how the original F-scale actually works. Please address that, not ignoring it and maintaining the same argument --where that argument is addressed.

 * The remarks of C. R. Allen, past president of the Geological Society of America, are pertinent when one attempts to predict upper bounds of natural phenomena. Allen (1974) emphasizes that no amount of sophisticated statistics or extreme value theory can throw much light on the nature and frequency of large events [...] All of the aforementioned tornado risk models are based on the F-scale intensity ratings [F0-F5] (Fujita, 1971).
 * Abbey, Robert F. Jr., and T. Theodore Fujita (October 1975). "Use of tornado path lengths and gradations of damage to assess tornado intensity probabilities". Preprints, 9th Conference on Severe Local Storms, Norman, Oklahoma. American Meteorological Society, Boston, p. 286-293. (Satellite Mesometeorology and Research Project Paper 138)

Evolauxia 07:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

F5 - in reality
Fujita created his scale to better document tornado activity. From his words, the scale is an "estimation" of winds speeds from engineering damage data. Fujita extended the scale out to F12 for scientific and data collection purposes. As everyone agrees above, F12 gives us mach 1 speeds. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The original F-scale wind speeds were just guesses fitted to a graduation of 12 parts following the end of the 12 part Beaufort scale to Mach 1. There was no hard engineering analysis initially, and the scale of use was clearly defined from F0-F5, which covered the maximum possible damage as well as the maximum expected wind speeds in any tornado.

There was engineering analysis done throughout the 1970s culminating in detailed reports as well as recommended wind speed scales for specific damage such as Dames and Moore (Abbey, 1976) and Twiddle (1978), which are quite similar to Enhanced Fujita Scale (McDonald, 2004), incidentally.

Fajita, T.T. (1971). "Proposed characterisation of tornadoes and hurricanes by area and intensity". SMRP Research Paper 91, University of Chicago.

Doswell, Charles A. III (2003). A Guide to F-Scale Damage Assessment. NOAA / NWS.

Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What his scale has given us
In its simplest usage, it gives us a direct way to document wind damage from tornadoes.

It has also given us a data form of occurences of tornadoes, such that we can say that a probability of occurences exists. Meaning that we get a probability curve directly related to the strength of tornadoes to the number of occurences. Several websites depict this fact.

The largest number of "witnessed" tornadoes occur in the F1 to F2 range. This drops of significantly as we go through the F3 and F4 range. So much so, that F5 is extremely rare. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The damage itself is directly observed, but it's an indirect inference of intensity and wind speed, ergo one cannot make comparisons between events or do risk management/climatology or valid statistics assuming they are DIRECTLY attained. An important caveat, but otherwise the jist is correct, that rough intensity distributions (cognizant of the shortcomings) can be inferred and modeled. Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Probability Speaking
The term "witnessed" is also important, such that ruling out 318mph or higher is not accepted. But it is accepted that it becomes highly improbable, not impossible (mathematically, statistically).

Impossibility would have to derive from some documentable evidence. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The problem is the scale of use is designated as F0-F5. That covers both maximum possible damage as well as maximum expected wind speeds.  We can't know the maximum of any natural phenomena with certainity, and we sure don't have observations of many tornadoes.  We have no observations of the complete structure (including wind speeds) of any tornado at any moment in time, much less the entire life cycle of even a single tornado.  What we have to go on, both in the original and the Enhanced Fujita Scale is a clearly defined scale.  Yes, there are mathematical models but they're not rigorously based on hard data and aren't "fact", they're numerical guesses; they're academic exercises just as the original wind speed formula was.  For the topic at hand, it thus is irrelevant, the scale is defined F0-F5 and was designed to cover the maximum possible wind speeds in tornadoes but those wind speeds were guesses.  You are good to point out the need for documentable evidence as well as the importance of our reliance on what is observed.  Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * But! do not forget that windspeeds exceeding 230 mph (top of EF scale) have been measured, which still gives the old scale qualification, and disqualifies the new scale due to another factor. The question that disqualifies the new EF scale is this: Have you ever seen F5 damage on an interstate highway overpass?
 * The question is intended to use either scale's method of quantifying damage into the F-scale (or EF-scale) - Hard Raspy Sci 04:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The new EF scale
It should be noted that the new scale reduces the windspeeds for F-levels above F3. The main reason this was proposed was due to the overestimation of wind damage to buildings and the interest in maintaining historical record keeping.

The truth of the matter is that F5 is the highest "sensible" damage estimation, anything above you need direct measurement access. So operationally speaking and because of physical evidence, old F5 became the top rating. — Hard Raspy Sci 19:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It "reduces" the wind speed because that is what incurs the described damage, the old scale correlated wind speeds were incorrect. Correct, it operationally became a purely damage scale; but even from the initial paper, the scale was designed to cover the maximum expected wind speeds (and possible damage) and F0-F5 were specifically defined for actual use.
 * The new scale just adjusts wind speeds for damage, eliminating confusion of the original F-scale formula and F0-F12 graduations derived therefrom, as well as adds DIs/DODs. The wind speeds will continue to be adjusted, though in-situ or remote measurements may be used on rare occasions that they're available.  Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Winds for each F-level from old F-scale to enhanced-F
- to extend -
 * (E)F0 — raised
 * (E)F1 — lower bound raised, upper about the same
 * (E)F2 — lower about the same, upper bound is lowered
 * (E)F3 — all lowered, upper bound splits old F3 in half
 * (E)F4 — upper half of old F3
 * (E)F5 — lower half of old F4
 * (E)F6 - ~230 to ~270
 * (E)F7 - ~270 to ~310

But, after Feb. 2007, the new EF scale will make the 1999 Brideport-Moore-Oklahoma City tornado an (E)F7 tornado...chew on that one... — Hard Raspy Sci 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

 * The continued emphasis on wind speeds is potentially disconcerting, it's still a damage scale. The wind speeds are just correlations to damage, and are still guesses, albeit very good guesses from top damage analysis and meteorological experts with tremendous experience and knowledge, obtained via a process of "expert elicitation" but still not rigorously tested physically or even numerically.
 * Moore would not be EF7 because it's a damage scale (and defined as EF0-EF5) with an open-ended maximum wind speed range. Even if it were not a damage scale, again, there is no way to discern what would be the top possible.  The Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is open for this reason, arbitrary cutoffs aren't scientificly valid.
 * Your extension of wind speeds is not based in science or on how the EF scale works; I assume you're just showing the difference in wind speeds but you have no basis for those thresholds, and your extension should not be misconstrued.
 * There was a formula computed to cleanly connect the F-scale and EF-scale to maintain the tornado database:
 * y = 0.6246x + 36.393; R² = 0.9118
 * where x is 3-second gust speeds adjusted from original F-scale fastest 1/4 mile speeds, and y is the derived EF scale 3 second gust speeds.
 * Evolauxia 08:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Umm. Moore was radard at 319 MPH. Thats more than an EF7, so I dont like the EF scale at all. Also, the Xenia '74 tornado was almost rated an F-6 by Fujita himself. Since he wasnt sure, he defaulted to rating it an F-5. And the tri state tornado was one tornado.

Maximus 100 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Maximus_100Maximus 100 (talk) 04:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Mostly, I do agree with what you say, but I disagree with the old scale from an operational standpoint and I disagree with the new scale from a scientific viewpoint. But my extension above is scientifically based, ...I really hate open-ended bins... ;)
 * I also disagree with EF scale, because EF scale is not scientific, its political. It also makes the housing industry look good.  Review the scale again, and think about what I just said.  - Hard Raspy Sci 03:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The new EF-scale isn't political, it's scientific. You don't need a 300 mph wind to blow a house apart and scatter the debris.  Also, the often-quoted 300+ mph wind recorded in the 1999 Moore, OK tornado doesn't really count.  That wind was measured several hundred feet above ground level where the wind is much stronger.  We don't know what the actual wind speeds are at, for example, the roof level of houses in a strong tornado, or any tornado, really, which is why the EF-scale wind ranges are educated guesses and also why it is open-ended at the top. --anon 4:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC) (or mar 16 because of the international dateline.  I am not using auto-timestamp because it is stupid) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.152.8.136 (talk • contribs)

 * The EF5 rating is defined as "Winds > 200 mph". EF5 is the maximum rating that exists.  Thus the arguement is laid to rest. -Runningonbrains 18:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

 * Right!! That's exactly my point. You don't need 300mph winds to knock down a house, thus the jab at the housing industry is appropriate!   OK?    And please have the guts to sign something, and don't re-iterate common knowledge to drive a slippery slope or a red-herring.  The new scale benefits the housing industry. Why? Ok, I'll spell it out.  It lowers the apparent maximum, making their product look like it can handle higher wind loads before failure.  Failure = damage + deaths.  The wind speeds haven't changed, the scale has been "watered down". Also, there has not been any scientific correlation that the old scale is wrong.  So, yes, political.  -- Hard Raspy Sci 15:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The new EF scale was created for several (good!) reasons: first and foremost, it gives damage surveyors vastly more damage quantifiers from which to estimate a rating; the old system could only be efficiently implemented by observing damage to "well-built" houses, trailers, and barns. Thus damage to such structures as schools, churches, shopping centers, etc. could not be used to classify damage unless a detailed engineering survey was done. If anything, tornado damage ratings will become MORE quantitative in the future, and this is a good thing for meteorologists and climatologists, because even with minimal experience with site surveys, those responsible for surveying damage can come to their conclusions with much less subjective judgement.

 * Secondly, as stated earlier, several engineers have come to the conclusion that winds in Fujita's original scale estimates are not needed to do the damage to which they were originally assigned. This DOES NOT (and I can't stress this enough) mean that meteorologists all of a sudden consider 200 or so mph winds to be anywhere near the upper limit of tornado wind speeds. Of course, much higher winds have been indirectly (through Doppler radar, as well as photogrammetry in the 1970s) observed several times. Keep in mind that the Fujita scale, strictly speaking, rates DAMAGE, not tornadoes. It's more proper to say, "the tornado caused F5 damage" rather than, "the tornado was an F5". This is a very important distinction. By lowering the bounds for upper-level ratings, the EF scale establishes what engineering science has come to accept: you don't need 300 mph winds to do F5 damage. That's not the same as, "the F5 tornado couldn't possibly have had 300 mph winds". What the new scale basically says is that once you reach a certain wind speed, you can't do any worse damage to regular structures. You can't distinguish between damage done by 200 mph winds as opposed to that done by 300 mph winds (buildings like reactor cores at nuclear facilities are engineered to withstand winds in the old F5 range, but they are rarely struck by such winds and are of little use as a damage rating tool).

 * Also, I don't quite follow your logic that lowering the bounds for wind speeds that can do extreme damage somehow makes contractors "look good" - if anything, it makes them look WORSE, because it establishes that houses apparently CANNOT withstand as high winds as the old Fujita scale supposed. Some engineers have opined that certain homes can show F4-F5 damage after being exposed to winds as low as 160 mph - hardly the wind speeds that you would associate with monster events like the Moore tornado. So I really don't see an agenda at work here. I've read much literature on the revising of the Fujita scale, by prominent severe weather experts and engineers, and they pretty well agree that the old scale gave too MUCH credit to an average home's ability to withstand high winds. How is that catering to the construction lobby? CapeFearWX 05:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell: F and EF use damage to extrapolate wind speed. You look for certain damage indicators and judge the rating accordingly. When you're surveying an area where the asphalt has been sucked off the roadbed, the cars chopped into confetti with the bare chassis wadded up into a ball, and strong, recently built frame houses obliterated leaving a smooth slab and no piece of recognizable debris, the concept of EF6 seems a teensy smidge unnecessary. I mean, what would it have to do, open up a rift in the space time continuum and cast a town into The Void? EF5 is the limit for a reason. 69.19.14.30 06:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a numbers-fap thing. There's a certain vocal minority in tornado studies who simply cannot comprehend the idea that the F and EF scale are correlated with observed damage, not measured windspeed. If you clocked a tornado at Mach 1 in an empty field, it's still an EF0 unless it produces observable damage that supports a higher rating. The real problem, of course, is that that these same people have percolated their ideas down into the population at large and now the NWS is under political pressure every time they have to assign an EF rating to a storm which has killed a bunch of people; the Joplin fiasco is a great example (NWS surveys and declares an EF4, people shriek in indignation that the worst thing in their lives is not the worst thing on the scale, politicians get in on the act and demand they redo the survey, NWS is a government agency and dutifully follows their orders, and magically an EF4 becomes a max-scale EF5). Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 04:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

map of trail?
Would it be possible to include a map of the trail of the tornado? - SimonLyall 08:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

 * There is one from the NWS Paducah site in the Wikimedia Commons link. It's not easily readable without enlargment, but will have to do for now, it's more a less a version of the same original work and I've never found anything better.  It also doesn't go well in the article at the moment, but will when more text is added.  I prefer to keep the newspaper headline in the infobox.

 * FWIW, a detailed reassessment with comprehensive surveys and interviews is recently ongoing. Some refinement of the track is quite possible.  Can't say more until it's published. Evolauxia 23:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Maybe this version would provide a decent overview of the storms 3-state track. --Dual Freq 00:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * That could do for now. I'll try and make a similar map of the outbreak paths eventually. Evolauxia 01:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Expand
This one of if not the most important single tornado in history. The article should be expanded to include more information about the aftermath, as well as its historical scope. Actually, pretty much any non-trivial info that can be added should be added. Also, yes, a map of the track would be perfect. -Runningonbrains 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If others don't get to it first, I intend to expand it significantly when I find time. I've provided quite a lot of source material online, as well as other stuff which can be found in libraries or otherwise obtained. Evolauxia 10:12, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * The writing on Wikipedia about weather is so atrocious (essentially word tornadoes - laughable hyperbole, terrible usage errors, grammar mistakes, spelling mistakes, chaotic presentation) that I would hesitate to encourage more of it. Antimatter33 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Info on other tornadoes
There is information on the main tornado online with which to expand the article, but the other tornadoes will be hard to find. Here is info on the other tornadoes, for the event table. I'll provide the data, someone please format it into the tables.

times local; only curt note of most significant damage listed for now due to copyright issue
 * 1) F2; Montgomery County, Kansas; 0510; unknown path length/width; 0k, 0inj; homes and gas station damage at and around Dearing, Kansas
 * 2) F5; Reynolds-Iron-Madison-Bollinger-Cape Girardeau-Perry, Missouri - Jackson-Williamson-Franklin-Hamilton-White, Illinois - Posey-Gibson-Pike, Indiana; 1301; 219 mi (1200 yd ave width); ≥695k, 2027inj; moved ENE near Ellington, Missouri to about 10 mi NE Princeton, Indiana
 * 3) F2; Colbert County, Alabama; 1645; 12 mi (60 yd ave width); 1k, 12inj; moved NE at Littleville, Alabama where damage and casualties at gas station, homes, and store occurred
 * 4) F4; Sumner, Tennessee - Allen-Barren-Monroe-Metcalfe, Kentucky; 1700; 60 mi psbl tornado family (400 yd ave width); 39k, 95inj; moved ENE from near Buck Lodge, Tennessee (8 mi N Gallatin, Tennessee) to Beaumont, Kentucky, homes leveled in many communities
 * 5) F4; Harrison County, Indiana - Jefferson County, Kentucky; 1715; 18 mi (1200 yd ave width); 4k, 60inj; up to mile wide, moved ENE from Muckport, swept away entire farms near Laconia and Elizabeth, Indiana before ending just south of Louisville, Kentucky
 * 6) F3; Williamson-Rutherford, Tennessee; 1745; 20 mi (200 yd ave width); 1k, 9inj; major damage to homes in Kirkland, Tennessee incurring all casualties
 * 7) F3; Jefferson-Oldham, Kentucky; 1800; 10 mi (unknown width); ≥3k, 40inj; moved NE from east edge of Louisville, Kentucky to near Pewee Valley, Kentucky; at least dozen homes destroyed
 * 8) F3; Bedford-Rutherford, Tennessee; 1810; 12 mi (300 yd ave width); 2k, 15inj; moved ENE from near Unionville, Tennessee to 2 mi NE Fosterville, Tennessee, at least 10 homes destroyed
 * 9) F3; Marion-Washington-Mercer-Jessamine-Fayette-Bourbon, Kentucky; 1830; 60 mi tornado family (300 yd ave width); 2k, 40inj; moved ENE from western Marion County, Kentucky, passing near Springfield, Kentucky, ending past Lexington, Kentucky
 * Source: Grazulis, Thomas P. (1993). Significant Tornadoes.

Evolauxia 01:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Good find! That is really hard to find for such old outbreaks! (Of course, there were probably more F0 and F1 tornadoes that went unreported) CrazyC83 01:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I added the F-scale breakdown, but if someone adds a summary table of the actual tornadoes, that would be great. And yes, there were undoubtedly more tornadoes, both weak and strong, this event had several large, long-track, intense tornadoes (at least 3 violent!).  I don't know how many, but the number of other tornadoes is very likely not insignificant.  Additionally, it's likely the path length of the  Tri-State will be extended. Evolauxia 10:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Important information missing?
I've heard from various professors and scientists about the "Tri-State" tornado, and I understand that there are competing theories about what actually happened. Modern research seems to have suggested that episodes like this are actually a family of tornadoes borne out of a cyclical supercell event, but there are weaknesses in applying that theory to this case... Also, detailed maps of the path are broken where the tornado was not tracked. The national weather service mentions that scientists are uncertain as to what actually happened:

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/pah/1925/wi_body.php

Anyway, the point is that I think we could add a section devoted to theories about this phenomenon. Does anyone have any information about this? Alternative theories? I'd like to hear about that. In any case, it would be good to have a more detailed map of the damage but I've only seen that in textbooks that I no longer own.

RobShepard 01:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

 * There has been little evidence of breaks in the path, actually none save some scant, uncompelling stuff in a couple areas of the path. The problem has been that it doesn't match with our past and current understanding of supercell morphology/dynamics and tornadogenesis as well as lack of any other tornadoes approaching that length or duration. This has changed some as recent tornadoes have occurred with very long tracks, as well as very long-lived supercells (which doesn't connect directly, we've known about long-track tornado families, but is evidenciary of our changing understanding of supercells/severe convective storms and tornadoes).  There has also been very thorough new research on the path of the tornado, including a detailed resurvey as well as significant attempts to locate survivors and other additional information.  As of this writing, no evidence of a break in the path had been found, and the path length may actually be extended! Evolauxia 10:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

 * There are many eyewitness reports of which I have heard and read that the Tri-State Tornado from a distance had the appearance of a giant, roiling dust storm. It was not until the storm was nearly engulfing them that they realized it was actually a tornado.  Even if it had been a dust storm, it would have been exceedingly unusual for that area of the US (I lived for many years in one of the towns that was in the Tornado's path).  Edeans 23:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Article's name
To comply with Naming conventions (events), I changed the article name (tornado is now lower case). --Rosiestep (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * While this is applicable in most cases, this tornado is known by the proper name "Tri-State Tornado". I have reverted the move. - Running  On  Brains  19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Only after making today's name change (in good faith and in accordance with WikiProject Severe weather/Tornado's naming convention) did I notice the above comment from Runningonbrains. I also fixed double redirects. I'll leave this alone for now vs. doing a revert myself.  I left a note on Runningonbrains talk page to give him an opportunity to comment as there wasn't any intent to create an edit war. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's all good. I think this article is a clear example of when NOT to use the DATELOCATIONTYPE format for storm naming. I thought the naming convention stated that, when an official/accepted name for an event/storm already, that name should take precedence, but apparently it doesn't. I propose that it should, especially when no date disambiguation is needed. I have posted on WT:SEVERE to gather opinions. I'll revert/maintain the current title depending on consensus there. Thanks!- Running On  Brains  03:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * PS Here are some links which name the event simply "Tri-State Tornado", just in case you were wondering: NOAA, Popular Mechanics, National Geographic, Book written on the topic, Website dedicated to storm's history. - Running On  Brains  03:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Runningonbrains that standard naming don't always apply and that in the case of recognized names that Wikipedia should retain the respective standard name. There are complications, even for that, of course, such as the multiple Palm Sunday outbreaks in which a case a year is appropriate.  The St. Louis - East St. Louis Tornado is another example where there are multiple tornadoes striking those cities, but the 1896 event is usually the one people are thinking of (and for which books are written).  There's also the matter of capitalization for events that are proper noun.
 * And thanks Rosiestep for all your work over the months keeping articles up-to-date with policy. That work is laborious and these complications make it that much more so.  Evolauxia (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Death toll numbers don't add up in section on Illinois
I could be reading the section wrong but the article states that 695 people lost their lives in total in the entire path of the tornado. When you come to the section on Illinois you read that 34 were lives were lost in Gorham, that 541 lives were lost in the towns of Johnston City, Murphysboro, De Soto, Hurst-Bush, West FrankfortZeigler, Eighteen, and Crossville. Next 22 lives are lost in Parrish bringing the number to 597. Finally, this may be splitting hairs but the article states that 234 were killed in Murphysboro. I know that this 234 is included in the 597 but the phrase is a bit ambiguous leading the reader to think that the number should be more like 831.Mortsey (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Meteorological details

 * March 2013 Reanalysis of Meteorological Events associated with the 1925 Tri-State tornado (and overall outbreak)
 * The 1925 Tri-State Tornado Damage Path and Associated Storm System

Cyclonebiskit (talk) 08:28, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Obsolete references
I'm paring down the references but wanted to paste the obsolete historical refs here rather than simply delete them.

Evolauxia (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Tri-State Tornado. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606103251/http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html to http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/2011_tornado_information.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131031201949/http://www.tornadoproject.com:80/toptens/1.htm to http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tri-State Tornado. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.tornadoproject.com/toptens/1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081016135615/http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilfrankl/subjects/tornado.htm to http://www.rootsweb.com/~ilfrankl/subjects/tornado.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this article about a tornado, or a tornado outbreak?
I note this edit by Evolauxia with edit summary "there's a format to tornado event articles. this was a major outreak of which the namesake "tornado" was one family".

Firstly, it is marked as minor, which you shouldn't do to a revert unless you are pretty sure the original edit was in bad faith.

On the substance of the change... Most of the articles about tornadoes are about tornado outbreaks, but the title of this article suggests it is about a specific tornado. From the comment, I am guessing Evolauxia wants this article to be about the outbreak as a whole. If so, we should move the article to something like Tri-State tornado outbreak.

However, I would prefer to keep the existing title - the tri-state tornado was much bigger than the other tornadoes of the outbreak - 695 of the 747 deaths - so it makes sense to have that as the main subject and mention the wider outbreak lower down the article.

This wouldn't be the only article where the title is a single tornado. e.g. 1924 Lorain–Sandusky tornado, which was the year before, and New Orleans tornado of 2017.

Yaris678 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 1925tornado-p2o-b.jpg

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 1925tornado-p2o-b.jpg

Article's Name (2021)
I feel like "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" isn't a very recognizable title for such a well-known event. Shouldn't the name be changed to be a more widespread title, such as "Tri-State Tornado Outbreak"? The title, "Tornado outbreak of March 18, 1925" is bland and not much more recognizable than "Tornado Outbreak of March 17, 2021", so it should be changed to be a bit more recognizable. This is what was done with the Andover tornado outbreak to make it a more recognizable title. Chrispanda (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Article Update (12/2021)
Unfortunately, the events of the December 10, 2021 outbreak has broken the record set by this tornado/outbreak. National Weather Service has confirmed the track for the Quad-state tornado being around 240miles long, making the Tri-State tornado now the second longest tornado track recorded. SIMplMn9 (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The number of deaths in Griffin Is..?
Why is it written in our photo card that 44 died in Griffin, but in article 46? i not know -- 212.164.204.112 (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2022
Can the Infobox mention the tornado outbreak caused 751 deaths? I got that by adding up the total deaths which is allowed per WP:CALC. 69.118.232.58 (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ SpinningCeres 01:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Found this image of the Tri State Tornado
This was taken when the Tornado was nearing at its peak width around the Hamilton and White counties. I had found this in the blog site you can find on this link.

Link to the source of the Image https://fox41blogs.typepad.com/wdrb_weather/2015/03/the-great-tri-state-tornado.html

Don't know if this is real or not? But if that is the case then it is one of the rarest image of the Tornado itself. But what do you think? - CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Update
This image was faked therefore I had revert it by removing the image in the page itself. Sorry for anyone who thinks this is real.CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where did you see that the image was faked? I’m actually curious because on the website you linked, WDRB Meteorologist Jeremy Kappell actually stated it was a photograph of the tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It really the 1979 Wichita Falls, Texas tornado that was photoshopped to the extreme.
 * https://twitter.com/300mphef5/status/1462557510032838660?lang=ar-x-fm CrusaderToonamiUK (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * (Courtesy ping) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 17:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sheriff's death
The article says ''Also killed at De Soto was Jackson County Deputy Sheriff George Boland. While on patrol when the storm struck, the tornado lifted him from the ground and he disappeared into the funnel. His body was never found''.

However, the ODMP website, which records all killed police officers in the United States, does not mention Deputy Sheriff George Boland as having died in a tri state tornado.

Here is a link to the ODMP in 1925, and there are no deaths of police officers on March 18, that is, on the day when there was a tornado. —https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=1925

What should we do with this line in the article? 2.63.201.157 (talk) 15:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak


text:
Shadows Collide with People

Shadows Collide with People is the fourth studio album by American musician John Frusciante, released February 24, 2004. The album was written during the recording of By the Way (2002) by Frusciante's group Red Hot Chili Peppers and is widely regarded as his most accessible work, featuring a mix of guitar-driven alternative rock, folk ballads, and electronica. Frusciante has stated that this was his most expensive solo album to date, costing around $150,000 to produce, a significant departure from his earlier albums, which had been low-budget and recorded at his home. Frusciante noted, "I was sick and tired of people dismissing my records as being fucked-up and unprofessional."

Flea plays a double bass on "The Slaughter", the closing track of the album. All songs were written by John Frusciante, except "Omission" and "-00Ghost27" which were co-written with Josh Klinghoffer who would later replace Frusciante in Red Hot Chili Peppers. Klinghoffer and Frusciante share the album credits for "Vocal, Guitar, Bass, Synthesizers, Keyboards & Percussion". Shadows Collide with People is the only Frusciante solo album to feature Red Hot Chili Peppers' drummer Chad Smith.

Frusciante also made acoustic and demo versions of these tracks available to fans through his official site as an alternative to the highly-produced sound of the record. The demo tracks feature Josh Klinghoffer on drums. A promo version of the album was also made, with the tracks "Omission", "Song to Sing When I'm Lonely", and "Failure33Object".

The album reached number 191 on the Billboard 200 and #11 on Heatseekers.

On the vinyl release of the album the words "One step away" were inscribed on side A, "There's riddles in the shadows" on side B, "A hint of sadness" on side C, and '"What they least suspect is coming next" on side D. All of these were hints to lyrics on John's next solo album The Will to Death, specifically the songs "The Will to Death" (side A), "The Days Have Turned" (sides B and D), and "Loss" (side C).

Personnel

 * John Frusciante – lead and backing vocals, acoustic and electric guitar, synthesizers, bass, piano, Mellotron, producer, art direction
 * Josh Klinghoffer – lead vocals (on "Omission"), backing vocals, bass, electric guitar, synthesizers, keyboards, piano, mellotron, synare, vocoder, percussion, timpani
 * Chad Smith – drums, percussion
 * Flea – upright bass (on "The Slaughter")
 * Omar Rodríguez-López – slide guitar (on "Chances", "23 Go in to end")
 * Greg Kurstin – wurlitzer piano (on "Of Before")
 * Charlie Clouser – orchestral programming (on "Regret" and "Chances")

 * Production
 * Jim Scott – engineer, mixing
 * Ryan Hewitt – engineer
 * Dave Lee – equipment technician
 * Ethan Mates – engineer
 * Chris Holmes – assistant
 * Chris Ohno – assistant
 * Joe Mankin – assistant
 * Alex Marshall – assistant
 * Daniel Carlotta Jones – assistant
 * Serena Deakin – assistant
 * Bernie Grundman – mastering
 * Rene Ricard – cover painting
 * Vincent Gallo – photography
 * Richard Scane Goodheart – design

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Shadows Collide with People


text:
DBV

dBv, dBV, or DBV may refer to:

 * DBV is the Afrikaans abbreviation of the word "Dierebeskermingsvereniging", the English definition of DBV is SPCA and trademarked in South Africa to the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals - South Africa.
 * dBV, a measurement of voltage
 * Deutscher Baseball und Softball Verband eV (DBV), the baseball and softball governing body in Germany.
 * Deutscher Bauernverband, the advocacy group for farmers in Germany
 * DBV, the IATA airport code for Dubrovnik Airport
 * DBV, a type of pulsating white dwarf
 * Dollis Brook Viaduct
 * Dictionary of Virginia Biography, frequently abbreviated as the DBV
 * DBV Technologies, a French bio-pharmaceutical company
 * German Construction Workers' Union
 * Deathbed Visions

title: DBV


text:
Cayrel's Star

BPS CS31082-0001, named Cayrel's Star, is an old Population II star located in a distance of 2.1 kpc in the galactic halo. It belongs to the class of ultra-metal-poor stars (metallicity [ Fe/H ] = -2.9), specifically the very rare subclass of neutron-capture enhanced stars. It was discovered by Tim C. Beers and collaborators with the Curtis Schmidt telescope at the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile and analyzed by Roger Cayrel and collaborators. They used the Very Large Telescope (VLT) at the European Southern Observatory in Paranal, Chile for high-resolution optical spectroscopy to determine elemental abundances. The thorium-232 to uranium-238 ratio was used to determine the age. It is estimated to be about 12.5 billion years old, making it one of the oldest known.

Compared to other ultra-metal-poor, r-process enriched stars (as CS22892-052, BD +17° 3248, HE 1523-0901) CS31082-001 has higher abundances of the actinides (Th, U), but a surprisingly low Pb abundance.

title: Cayrel's Star


text:
STS-112

STS-112 (ISS assembly flight 9A) was an 11-day Space Shuttle mission to the International Space Station (ISS) flown by. Space Shuttle Atlantis was launched on 7 October 2002 at 19:45 UTC from the Kennedy Space Center's launch pad 39B to deliver the 28,000 pound Starboard 1 (S1) truss segment to the Space Station. Ending a 4.5-million-mile journey, Atlantis landed at 15:44 UTC on 18 October 2002 on runway 33 at the Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility.

During the launch, the ET bipod ramp shed a chunk of foam that caused a dent ~4" wide and 3" deep into the metal SRB-ET Attach Ring near the bottom of the left Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Booster. Prior to the next mission (STS-113), an upper-level decision was made at NASA to continue with launches as scheduled. The launch subsequent to that was the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, the ill-fated STS-107.

Space Shuttle Atlantis had been scheduled to visit the International Space Station (ISS) again on the STS-114 mission in March 2003; however, due to the loss of Columbia, all Space Shuttles, including Atlantis, were temporarily grounded. Due to rescheduling of missions, Atlantis did not fly again until STS-115 on 9 September 2006.

Starboard 1 (S1) truss segment
The S1 truss segment, which provides structural support for the Space Station radiators was the main payload of STS-112 mission.

The Boeing Company (along with Lockheed Martin) started manufacturing the truss in May 1998 at Michoud. The work was completed in March 1999. The S1 was shipped by aircraft to the KSC Operations and Checkout Building in October 1999 for flight processing. In June 2002, the truss was handed over to NASA for final preparations and pre-flight checks at the Space Station Processing Facility.

Crew Equipment Translation Aid
Atlantis also delivered the Crew Equipment Translation Aid (CETA) Cart to the Space Station. The CETA cart was attached to the Mobile Transporter (launched on STS-110) to be used by assembly crews on later missions.

Mission experiments
STS-112 carried several science experiments to the space station including the Plant Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (PGBA), Commercial Generic Bioprocessing Apparatus (CGBA), the Protein Crystal Growth Single-locker Thermal Enclosure System housing the Protein Crystallization Apparatus for Microgravity (PCG-STES-PCAM) and samples for the Zeolite Crystal Growth Furnace (ZCG) experiment.

Shuttle processing
Launch preparations for STS-112 mission were sightly delayed due to tiny cracks found within the plumbing of Atlantis' propulsion system on 17 June 2002 by an inspector. The cracks were in metal flow liners inside the main liquid hydrogen fuel lines that feed the shuttle's three main engines. Although there were no cracks in the actual fuel pipes themselves, the concern was that metal pieces from the flow liners might break off and fly into the engines. In such a worst-case scenario, the debris can potentially trigger a catastrophic engine shutdown, which in turn could lead to the loss of the crew and the shuttle.

7 October (Flight Day 1 – Launch)
Space Shuttle Atlantis lifted off from Launch Pad 39B of the Kennedy Space Center at 19:45:51 GMT through mostly clear blue skies. There were no problems reported during the countdown, and the ascent conformed to the standard timeline (see Space Shuttle – Mission Profile – Launch). For the first time in Space Shuttle history, a "rocketcam" video camera mounted to the upper part of Atlantis' external tank returned live video of the flight to NASA flight controllers. The video was near perfect until the two solid rocket boosters were jettisoned. At that point, the exhaust from the separation motors fogged the camera lens and made the rest of the video difficult to see.

Later, NASA announced that it was looking into a problem with explosive bolts that failed to fire properly during the launch. Immediately before the twin solid rocket boosters fired into life, only one set of pyrotechnics in ten explosive bolts exploded when commanded to do so. All 10 nuts exploded as planned, but NASA was interested in finding out an explanation for the unexpected anomaly.

Arguably the most significant event from this launch was the ET bipod ramp shedding a chunk of foam, estimated to be ~4"x5"x12", that broke away and hit the lower left SRB-ET Attach Ring near the Integrated Electronics Assembly (IEA) box causing a dent ~4" wide and 3" deep into the solid metal. Prior to approval for the next mission, the situation was analyzed and NASA decided to press ahead under the justification that "The ET is safe to fly with no new concerns (and no added risk)" of further foam strikes. This fateful decision set the stage for the STS-107 tragedy just two launches later. The CAIB report did not highlight the significance of video data from this being the first flight with the ET Camera.

8 October (Flight Day 2 – Rendezvous and docking preparations)
On Flight Day 2, the STS-112 crew settled into preparations for the next day's rendezvous and docking with the International Space Station. After the wake up call went at 4:46 am CDT, the crew began its first full day on orbit. Pilot Pamela Melroy assisted Mission Specialists David Wolf and Piers Sellers in a checkout of spacewalk suits and equipment. Commander Jeff Ashby worked with the prime robotic arm operator, Mission Specialist Sandy Magnus, to verify the arm's readiness. Ashby and Magnus powered up the arm for a video survey of Atlantis' payload bay. The crew also completed the setting up of the orbiter docking system's centerline camera, extended the orbiter's spring-loaded ring that will make first contact, and checked out rendezvous tools.

During the day, the STS-112 crew successfully completed three Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) burns to boost the shuttle into the station's orbit and refine its approach path to the station.

Astronaut Wolf also checked-out the Spatial Heterodyne Imager for Mesospheric Radicals or the SHIMMER experiment sponsored by the Naval Research Lab. The SHIMMER experiment uses an ultraviolet sensing camera to observe the Earth's atmosphere at 40–90 kilometers looking for possible ozone loss. The experiment proved balky, but with help from Mission Control the crew worked out steps to ready the gear for observations during the mission.

9 October (Flight Day 3 – Docking)
Space Shuttle Atlantis docked to the Space Station at 15:17 GMT to begin a week of joint operations for the STS-112 and Expedition 5 crews. With commander Jeffrey Ashby at the controls, Atlantis' docking system engaged the Pressurized Mating Adapter-2 (Destiny Laboratory's forward docking port) in the front of the space station as the two spacecraft sailed 245 miles above central Asia at five miles per second. Crew members of Atlantis were the first visitors for the Expedition 5 station crew who arrived at the outpost the first week of June 2002.

Following pressure checks, station science officer Peggy Whitson asked Commander Ashby if he had brought the salsa that she had asked for. When Ashby replied that he had, Whitson said "OK, we'll let you in". The hatches between Atlantis and the Space Station were opened at 16:51 GMT and astronaut Ashby floated into the Destiny Module and immediately embraced Whitson. Mission Specialist Sandra Magnus followed next, followed by the rest of Atlantis' STS-112 crew members. They were greeted by the three member station crew.

After a safety briefing from station commander Valery Korzun, the combined crews split up and began preparing for a busy day of work. Astronaut Pamela Melroy, cosmonaut Korzun, and Mission Specialists Dave Wolf, Piers Sellers, and Fyodor Yurchikhin configured the spacesuits for EVA 1. Magnus and Whitson reviewed robotic arm operations for moving the new truss segment into place.

10 October (Flight Day 4 – EVA 1)
The workday began at 3 am CDT with a musical wakeup call to Atlantis' crew from Mission Control, Houston. Earlier on Flight Day 4 astronauts Whitson and Magnus used the station's Canadarm2 robotic arm to grapple the S1 truss structure, remove it from Atlantis' payload bay, and move it to the starboard end the S0 section. Four remotely operated motorized bolts locked the two truss segments together at 8:36 am CDT.

Simultaneously, Astronauts Dave Wolf and Piers Sellers prepared for the mission's first spacewalk. EVA 1 was the 44th spacewalk staged to support the space station assembly and maintenance. The two astronauts exited the Quest Airlock at about 11:21 am EDT. Wolf's spacesuit had solid red stripes for identification, while Sellers donned an all white spacesuit. As Wolf worked to accomplish to connect power, data and fluid lines between the S0 and the S1 trusses, Sellers, on his first spacewalk, released the locks on three folded-up radiators mounted to the S1, allowing S1's radiators to be oriented for optimal cooling.

The spacewalking astronauts worked for seven hours and one minute outside the space station, 31 minutes longer than expected due to a problem with the Canadarm2. The glitch forced Wolf to complete installation of a television camera system on the far end of the truss without the assistance of the robot arm. The only other problem of EVA 1 came near the end of the spacewalk when Wolf reported his helmet earphones appeared to be losing power.

Throughout the spacewalk, astronaut Melroy offered guidance and advice to the spacewalkers and keeping them on schedule. Shuttle Commander Jeff Ashby operated the shuttle robotic arm, providing camera views for documentation. Following a tool inventory check and cleanup activities, Wolf and Sellers re-entered Quest. The Airlock was re-pressurized at 5:22 pm CDT to end EVA 1.

11 October (Flight Day 5 – Off duty and transfers)
On Flight Day 5, the combined shuttle and space station crew took several hours of off-duty time. Then they began transfer operations between the vehicles and prepared for mission's second spacewalk. The crew moved a number of scientific experiments back and forth between the shuttle and the ISS to return completed experiments to Earth and deploy new experiments at the ISS. Transfer items included a set of liver cell tissue samples from an experiment studying the function of human liver cells in microgravity, moved from the station onto the shuttle for return to Earth.

Payload experiments such as Marshall Space Flight Center's protein crystal growth thermal enclosures for growing high-quality protein crystals in micro-gravity experiments were moved to and from the station. Seven water containers were transferred to the station. Commander Jeff Ashby initiated a Nitrogen transfer process that moved about 15 pounds of the gas from Atlantis to the station by the end of the day.

STS-112 spacewalkers David Wolf and Piers Sellers, assisted by Pilot Pamela Melroy, readied the EVA equipment They recharged water on the extravehicular mobility unit (EMU), configured their tools and prepared the Quest airlock.

The crew also participated in several live media interviews. Astronauts Magnus, Wolf and Sellers discussed about EVA 1 and the first-time experiences in space with CBS Radio Network and Cable News Network (CNN). Speaking to CBS News, Wolf told that manual work Piers and himself did at the end of EVA 1 to install the S1's outboard nadir external camera got their heart rates up to over 170 per minute. The spacewalkers were not able to use the Station's Canadarm 2 as a result of a software glitch.

Russian cosmonauts Valery Korzun, Sergei Treschev and Fyodor Yurchikhin participated in several interviews with the Russian press. Shortly before sleep, the crew reviewed procedures for EVA 2.

18 October (Flight Day 12 – Landing)

.

Shuttlecam
A camera mounted to the shuttle's external tank captured Atlantis' ascent to orbit. This was the first time such footage was recorded. However, after solid rocket booster separation, the camera was fogged with the propellant, and was rendered unusable. The camera was moved downward after STS-112.

In the response to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster (STS-107), the camera was also used on all subsequent missions to capture images of the falling debris from the external tank.

Wake-up calls
NASA began a tradition of playing music to astronauts during the Gemini program, which was first used to wake up a flight crew during Apollo 15. Each track is specially chosen, often by their families, and usually has a special meaning to an individual member of the crew, or is applicable to their daily activities.

title: STS-112


text:
Munda languages

The Munda languages are a group of closely related languages spoken by about nine million people in India, Bangladesh and Nepal. They constitute a branch of the Austroasiatic language family, which means they are more distantly related to languages such as the Mon and Khmer languages, to Vietnamese, as well as to minority languages in Thailand and Laos and the minority Mangic languages of South China. Bhumij, Ho, Mundari, and Santali are notable Munda languages.

The family is generally divided into two branches: North Munda, spoken in the Chota Nagpur Plateau of Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Bihar, Odisha and West Bengal, as well as in parts of Bangladesh and Nepal, and South Munda, spoken in central Odisha and along the border between Andhra Pradesh and Odisha.

North Munda, of which Santali is the most widely spoken and recognised as an official language in India, has twice as many speakers as South Munda. After Santali, the Mundari and Ho languages rank next in number of speakers, followed by Korku and Sora. The remaining Munda languages are spoken by small, isolated groups, and are poorly described.

Characteristics of the Munda languages include three grammatical numbers (singular, dual and plural), two genders (animate and inanimate), a distinction between inclusive and exclusive first person plural pronouns, the use of suffixes or auxiliaries to indicate tense, and partial, total, and complex reduplication, as well as switch-reference. The Munda languages are also polysynthetic and agglutinating. In Munda sound systems, consonant sequences are infrequent except in the middle of a word.

Origin
Many linguists suggest that the Proto-Munda language probably split from proto-Austroasiatic somewhere in Indochina. Paul Sidwell (2018) suggests they arrived on the coast of modern-day Odisha about 4000–3500 years ago (c. 2000 BCE) and spread after the Indo-Aryan migration to the region.

Rau and Sidwell (2019), along with Blench (2019), suggest that pre-Proto-Munda had arrived in the Mahanadi River Delta around 1,500 BCE from Southeast Asia via a maritime route, rather than overland. The Munda languages then subsequently spread up the Mahanadi watershed. 2021 studies suggest that Munda languages spread as far as Eastern Uttar Pradesh and impacted Eastern Indo-Aryan languages.

Classification
Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches (Korku as an isolate, Remo, Savara, Kherwar, and Kharia-Juang). However, their interrelationship is debated.

Diffloth (1974)
The bipartite Diffloth (1974) classification is widely cited:

 * Munda
 * North Munda
 * Korku
 * Kherwarian
 * Kherwari branch: Birjia, Koraku
 * Mundari branch: Mundari, Bhumij, Asuri, Koda, Ho, Birhor, Kol, Turi
 * Santal branch: Santali, Mahali
 * South Munda
 * Kharia–Juang: Kharia, Juang
 * Koraput Munda
 * Remo branch: Gata (Gta), Bondo (Remo), Bodo Gadaba (Gutob)
 * Savara branch [Sora–Juray–Gorum] : Parengi (Gorum), Sora (Savara), Juray, Lodhi

Diffloth (2005)
Diffloth (2005) retains Koraput (rejected by Anderson, below) but abandons South Munda and places Kharia–Juang with the northern languages:

Anderson (1999)
Gregory Anderson's 1999 proposal is as follows.

 * Munda
 * North Munda
 * Korku
 * Kherwarian: Santali, Mundari
 * South Munda (3 branches)
 * Kharia–Juang: Juang, Kharia
 * Sora–Gorum: Sora, Gorum
 * Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ
 * Gutob–Remo: Gutob, Remo
 * Gtaʼ: Plains Gtaʔ, Hill Gtaʔ

However, in 2001, Anderson split Juang and Kharia apart from the Juang-Kharia branch and also excluded Gtaʔ from his former Gutob–Remo–Gtaʔ branch. Thus, his 2001 proposal includes 5 branches for South Munda.

Anderson (2001)
Anderson (2001) follows Diffloth (1974) apart from rejecting the validity of Koraput. He proposes instead, on the basis of morphological comparisons, that Proto-South Munda split directly into Diffloth's three daughter groups, Kharia–Juang, Sora–Gorum (Savara), and Gutob–Remo–Gtaʼ (Remo).

His South Munda branch contains the following five branches, while the North Munda branch is the same as those of Diffloth (1974) and Anderson (1999).

"Sora–Gorum Juang ↔ Kharia ↔ Gutob–Remo ↔ Gtaʔ"

 * Note: "↔" = shares certain innovative isoglosses (structural, lexical). In Austronesian and Papuan linguistics, this has been called a "linkage" by Malcolm Ross.

Sidwell (2015)
Paul Sidwell (2015:197) considers Munda to consist of 6 coordinate branches, and does not accept South Munda as a unified subgroup.

 * Munda
 * North Munda
 * Korku
 * Santali, Munda
 * Sora–Gorum
 * Juang
 * Kharia
 * Gutob–Remo
 * Gtaʼ

Reconstruction
The proto-forms have been reconstructed by Sidwell & Rau (2015: 319, 340–363). Proto-Munda reconstruction has since been revised and improved by Rau (2019).

title: Munda languages


text:
User talk:Jnc/2003

I'd put it in organ (music) unless you have loads and loads of technical stuff on tracker actions to add - it can always be broken off into its own article if it's expanded to the point of overpowering the rest of the article. I'm glad you're writing about E. Power Biggs by the way - I was only thinking the other day how although we now have a decent number of articles on pianists, we still have very few on organists. --Camembert

By Wikipedia naming conventions, an article should be named by the most widely used name in the English language. "Catherine de' Medici" has about 8,000 hits on Google. "Caterina Di Lorenzo de' Medici" has no hits at all. I think this page (and the other Medicis) should be moved back to their English names. -- JeLuF 21:23, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Why did you place redirects so that Pontormo redirected to Jacopo Pontormo, and Jacopo Pontormo redirected to Pontormo? It seems like bizarre vandalism, but I can't imagine that was the case. Consider me confused. :) Jwrosenzweig 20:08, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC) (P.S., I've stubbed Jacopo Pontormo, but it's not very good)

 * Okay, I see now what you were doing. Next time, I guess I'd suggest writing the stub before aiming redirects at it. :-) Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 20:11, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Actually, I screwed up slightly; I intended to create the listing under his full name, and had created the redirect from the short name at that point, but then discovered that he was usually called by the short name, so I had to move things around. Noel 20:44, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Great woodblock print articles. -- Tlotoxl 04:51, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks! Actually, it's pretty trivial for me - I have accumulated a ton of stuff on my home page over the years on woodblock prints, so it's simply a matter of a little editing and I can throw up these massive pages. Noel 05:09, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Well, it's really cool, in any case. Feel kinda bad for the Japanese Wikipedia, though -- they're lagging pretty far behind :) -- Tlotoxl 05:33, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hey, is this OK for the addition to Deletion_policy?
 * The does not apply to pages which a) have no content (such as Rediects), and b) also have no significant history. (E.g. a Redirect whose entire history is that it used to redirect from "Foo" to "Foobar", and has been changed to redirect to "FooBar", because the target page was moved, does not have any significant history.) A history which shows any content being added or removed is significant history.

Thanks! Noel 16:40, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)~

Yeah, go for it. Makes sense to me, although I wouldn't capitalise "redirects", which btw is spelt wrong. :) Good work. Angela

 * Yah, I saw the typo after I hit the "save this page" button. A common failing of mine! :-) I will change the caps, and add the text. Thanks! Noel 17:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I changed the "This notice policy does not apply to..." wording to "The notice does not need to be added to..." because some people are stating it is not policy, just a suggestion. Whether it is policy or not, I think the new version will less likely upset people. Hope that's ok with you. Angela

 * Sure, no problem with that reword. I was trying to much the same thing (I had originally used "requirement", and switched it to the softer "policy"). I figured I'd just say "policy" and then people would read it to be whatever the agreed-on policy was as the moment (if any :-), but your version is fine too. Noel 18:03, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the Akhenaten redirect as you requested. I'm not sure what you're doing with the new page, but you should be aware that the following linked to Akhenaten; User:LeonBambrick, Religious Persecution, Conventional Egyptian chronology, Seti I, Ra, Djhutmose.

Angela 19:01, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks! The rename was the subject of discussion among both the Egypt specialists working on the Akhenaten page, and on VP before it happened; see the discussion on Talk:Akhenaten/rename. The links to "Akhenaten" were probably people who wanted to use the right one, but I'm checking them out. Noel 20:03, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * I thought it might be. I had skipped reading about that on the Village pump so I wasn't quite sure. By the way, you don't need to reply on both our talk pages, although you can if you want to. Generally, if I expect a reply I will add the other person's talkpage to my watchlist so I can keep an eye out for replies there. But that's just what I do - not what you have to do or anything. Angela 20:17, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Hm -- I forgot to make it PNG with indexed color. You go ahead, if you like. User:Stevertigo

 * Well if you want to do it yourself, (I already did that image) -- you need to get a copy of Photoshop from somewhere, or use The Gimp (very good- and GNU) -- thats if your on a PC. On a Mac, I dunno. Gimp should have a version that will run on OSX. The basic idea is to change resolutions to exact specs -- the most important thing is size (in pixels, or whatever), then dpi (72 dpi for normal screen res)--and then indexing color --limiting the color pallete for gif or PNG (better) images so that it doesnt have to show the whole spectrum. For JPEGs, quality takes the place of an indexed scheme, but might be less desirable for line art, and generally I like better quality JPEGs (over 5).  - 戴&#30505sv 21:58, Aug 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have nominated you for adminship. If you wish to accept, you will need to state this on the Requests for adminship page. Angela 18:09, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

-

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page. It wasn't so much a case of burn out, I just thought I'd done something stupid by seconding Viajero's nomination when I suspected he might be Lir. Anyway, a couple of people who knew Lir better than I did have suggested it is not the same person, and for various reasons, I'm going to accept that and just hope it works out ok. Good luck with your adminship when you get it. Angela

Poof! You've got sysop rights. Use them well. As your first act, let me suggest that you update Administrators to reflect your new status. --Uncle Ed 19:27, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi Noel, congrats on the adminship! What are the redirects you are creating for? The Stanford_Artificial_Intelligence_Lab is a broken redirect and I normally delete those when I find them. I'm not sure Prevent duplicate article creation is very useful. It's easy enough to merge the articles if this does occur. Redirects show up in the search, and there has been complaint about this being annoying (see the Atlas Shrugged redirects for an example). Angela 00:17, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

 * Sorry, perhaps I was being too hasty as it's no longer a broken redirect. Makes more sense now.

And thanks for nominating me! No problem & don't see it as a bad sign that it was last thing I did b4 I quit! :) (or supposedly quit).

To prevent what happened with ITS I'd nearly forgotten about that. That was a bit of a nightmare, and I'm probably just being too fussy about a few redirects when the Atlas Shrugged ones were dozens that took an hour and half to delete! Angela 00:57, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I've been adding links to "Culture of XXX" and "Music of XXX" to all the country articles. The "Culture of XXX" article is a standard top-level article for any country, which I may or may not write in the future. I do hope to write Music of Bermuda sometime soon, and I am adding these links to country articles because it is easier to do them all at once than to wait and add the links after writing each article. As far as the capitalization, Wikipedia automatically capitalizes the first letter of every article, so it recognizes no difference between music of Bermuda and Music of Bermuda. I meant to capitalize the "M", though, just to be consistent, so I'll go fix that one -- it won't change the functionality of the link, but it will look better if they are all capitalized. Tuf-Kat 01:56, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

No, no. Redirects to subsections don't work. Links are fine! You can have Conventional Egyptian chronology but look at User_talk:Jnc/redirect to see how a redirect to that would not work. (Do feel free to delete the page once you've seen it). Angela 16:53, Oct 3, 2003 (UTC)

Ok. It was only a temporary redirect whilst it only had one example. I'm not sure if the creation of a disambiguation page for every TLA is really necessary. Is anyone likely to link to LSI when meaning Latent Semantic Indexing for example? Perhaps if such an article existed and that was a common initialism for it then it could be added then. I'm not saying you shouldn't do it, just that I'm not sure there's a lot of point. Or is there? I'm not convinced. Angela 23:28, Oct 11, 2003 (UTC)

 * Well if you think it will avoid extra work it has to be a good thing. My only doubt is that these lists could end up with hundreds of possibilities on them even for things where the initialism is not commonly used. But perhaps I should worry about that when it happens. Angela 00:12, Oct 12, 2003 (UTC)

Re Fernando J. Corbató, yeah, the Turing refs are a little repetitive. The first one is correct - it's in the short list of "why this person has an article", and shouldn't go into detail because lead paras need to be both short and understandable by every reader (I visualize people coming from "random page"). The second ref doesn't need to repeat the date, but it's the in-depth place where you get to quote the award committee, mention the award politics of that year if there's any good dirt :-), etc. Only the most fascinated will have gotten that far, so more detail is better then. Stan 20:10, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * The Turing Award is the top award that a computer scientist can get, so it's just as significant in CS as a Nobel is in other fields, and if you look you'll see that lead paras for Nobelists always mention the prize. We CSers will recognize Corbató as a Big Name with or without the mention, but the random-page person won't know unless we say something, and instead of the vague "one of the most important" we can say Turing Award, with the link so the random reader can find out more if they're never heard of it.

 * The assertion that the Turing is somehow unimportant because it goes to the wrong people is also routinely made of the Nobels, and in both cases it's really unfair to the winners. Disparaging it by burying it in the text is kind of a chicken approach - if you really think that so-and-so's work was not significant enough to warrant a Turing, say so explicitly in the person's article - and don't forget the authoritative backup you'll need for that kind of challenge! :-) (I can't think of any winners that I would dare disparage in a public place like Wikipedia, but presumably you have some people in mind.) Stan 20:50, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me! One thing that I couldn't locate easily was a good biblio of his important works, perhaps you have something handy? It would also be nice to have a little more insight into development/thought process, but that would have to come from a primary source, dunno what's been published for that kind of thing. Also, do you have a verifiable source for that "Corby" nickname? :-) :-) Stan 03:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

 * Excellent, I wish every article had those kinds of refs! Stan 04:41, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, there was another architect named Amenhotep-something-something, but Amenhotep the Pharaoh and Imhotep the architect are definitely different. Of course, they may be transliterations of the same name...I'm not sure now. Perhaps I was too bold in deleting that... Adam Bishop 13:27, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My source was encyclopedia mythica (at pantheon.org, which seems to either not exist any more or be down at the moment). IIRC, this was an example of a real person being mythologized and identified with a deity, but I don't have any authoritative source on the subject. Tuf-Kat 19:13, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

--

About the Medici's: If I'm just adding links to an article that I'm not very familiar with myself, I tend to leave the text itself alone. In this case, I didn't know the correct names for the family members in English. The names with de' look a bit weird to me, and I didn't know if they were correct (in English). Obviously you know more about them than I do, so it's fine that you changed the names. Eugene van der Pijll 19:24, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--

Can you write an article about swap partition??

--

Queen Elizabeth II is not Queen of Bermuda and therefore does not belong in the table. Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countries/Archive3 as it was also decided then that Hu Jintao would not belong in the Hong Kong and Macau tables.

Menchi thought Karukera's edits were an improvement for the Canada article, but acknowledged my position that we would unable to keep it standard for each country if we went by that specific formatting. In the case of Bermuda, what would we put on the left hand column for the governor? --Jiang 17:43, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

After reading the discussion (archive3), I realize that it was not entirely decided. However, precedence states that we do not list the head of state in dependency articles, and logic would agree. --Jiang 23:32, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

I'm not disputing whether Queen Elizabeth II reigns over Bermuda. The question is whether does so in a way that would lead us to insert her in the table. No other British dependency has her listed. If we list it here, then we list it on all the others. Would we also be listing her in the templates of England, Scotland, or even the City of London, for those are a portion of her "realms and territories"? Actually, Bermuda isn't a realm; it's a territory. Somehow this distinction between crown colony, crown dependency, and commonwealth realm needs to be made. Maybe it is best to do so in the politics section. --Jiang 01:31, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jnc/2003


text:
Thomas Jarvis

Thomas Jarvis (1623 – 1694) was the Deputy Governor of the Carolina Province from 1691 to 1694.

Biography
Thomas Jarvis was born in Northampton, Virginia in 1623 to Thomas Jarvis and Elizabeth Bacon. He started his political career in 1672 as a member of the executive council under Governor Peter Carteret and continued to play an active role in colonial politics for two decades. From 1683 to 1689, Jarvis was the acting chief executive during the tenures of governors Seth Sothel and John Gibbs. In 1691 he was appointed Deputy Governor of North and South Carolina where he served under Governor Philip Ludwell. With this appointment, Thomas became the first deputy governor of the entire colony, including the area north-east of Cape Fear.

Very little is known about his private life. Jarvis married Dorcas Foster and had two sons, Thomas III and Foster, along with one daughter, Dorcas. He purchased a piece of land located between the Perquimans River and Carolina Sound (at that time known as the Albemarle county). This land was purchased in conjunction with a Native American tribe. Jarvis also owned an estate on Whites Island, where he made his primary residence. Sometime before his appointment to deputy governor in 1691, Jarvis was a ship captain. In addition, Jarvis owned at least seven slaves (three were African Americans, two were Native Americans, and two were of biracial descent). He died in White's Island, Currituck, NC in 1694.

title: Thomas Jarvis


text:
Talk:Munda languages

Untitled
The 16 or so Munda languages are all spoken in India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. Most scholars classify them as a language family within the Austroasiatic stock. Santhali is the Munda language with the greatest number of speakers (a few million); Mundari, Ho, Sora, Kharia, and Korku have significantly fewer speakers. Some scholars include Nahali, spoken by a few thousand people in southwestern Madhya Pradesh, among the Munda languages. Khasi, spoken in Assam, Meghalaya, and a number of other Indian states, is a member of the Mon-Khmer language family. See Austroasiatic languages

(Actually, none of them are spoken in Pakistan.)

From a dup, possibly useful:

"The Munda languages are spoken in West Bengal, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh, India. Together with the Mon-Khmer languages, they form the Austro-Asiatic phylum. The main branches are: Juang, Bhumij, Korva and Ho, Altogether speakers number several millions but they are without a linguistic state, in contrast to, for example, Hindi, Dravidian and Tibeto-Burmese speakers in Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Mizoram respectively. The Munda languages are thought to be the most ancient linguistic stratum of India, ante-dating even Dravidian. Their relationship to the Mon-Khmer languages is remote."
 * Santali, Mundari and Kharia,
 * Sora and Gutob
 * Kurku

Stan 06:10, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Added reference to we-exclusive from http://bibleocean.com/OmniDefinition/Inclusive_we J S Ayer 01:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Sprachbund
Do we have a Sprachbund with IE and Dravid.? ~ Dpr 05:12, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) Munda language has quite a few similarity with the Japanese (Nihogo )vocablary

Classification
The Classification section says that "Munda consists of five uncontroversial branches. However, their interrelationship is debated.". Despite that the uncontroversial branches should be the default classification (e.g. in the infoboxes), these five branches cannot be unambiguously identified in that section or anywhere else in the article. Does anyone know which these are? --JorisvS (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Munda languages. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001210916/http://www.southasiabibliography.de/Bibliography/Austroasiatic/Munda/Munda_-_General/munda_-_general.html to http://www.southasiabibliography.de/Bibliography/Austroasiatic/Munda/Munda_-_General/munda_-_general.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Tiny labels on the map
Several of the labels in the map are so microscopically tiny that they are impossible to read at any resolution, and many others are ridiculously small as well. Definitely not ergonomic. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:Munda languages


text:
16th Golden Raspberry Awards

The 16th Golden Raspberry Awards were held on March 24, 1996, at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel to recognize the worst the movie industry had to offer in 1995. For the first time in Razzie history, an actual "winner" showed up to the ceremony and accepted his award: Showgirls director Paul Verhoeven.

Awards and nominations
{{Legend|#B0C4DE|Winner (in bold)}}

Films with multiple nominations
These films garnered multiple nominations:

title: 16th Golden Raspberry Awards


text:
Daniel Fowle

Daniel Fowle may refer to:

 * Daniel Gould Fowle (1831–1891), governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina, 1889–1891
 * Daniel Fowle (printer) (1715–1787), American printer before and during the American Revolution

title: Daniel Fowle


text:
Thomas Holt

Thomas Holt may refer to:
 * Thomas Holt (architect) (1578?–1624), English architect
 * Thomas Holt (MP for Canterbury), England, in 1386
 * Thomas Holt (Serjeant-at-Law) (1616–1686), English lawyer and politician; Member of Parliament for Abingdon
 * Thomas Holt (Australian politician) (1811–1888), wool merchant, financier and politician
 * Thomas Michael Holt (1831–1896), Governor of North Carolina, 1891–1893
 * Thomas Holt (American architect) (1835–1889)
 * Tom Holt (swimmer) (1923–2004), British swimmer
 * Thomas C. Holt (born 1942), American writer and historian
 * Tom Holt (born 1961), author of humorous fantasies and historical fiction

title: Thomas Holt


text:
Talk:Song dynasty

Draft:Southern Song
There is a draft at Draft:Southern Song being reviewed. Since there is an article on Northern Song, a separate article seems appropriate, but should be discussed first. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial reaction is that it seems reasonable to have a separate article on that era. — MarkH21talk 04:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this structure would be inappropriate. This article already has a well-developed summary style structure, with good and featured subarticles
 * History of the Song dynasty
 * Culture of the Song dynasty
 * Society of the Song dynasty
 * Economy of the Song dynasty
 * Science and technology of the Song dynasty
 * Architecture of the Song dynasty
 * This structure is appropriate because, as acknowledged by the relevant sections of the draft, the culture, economy, technology, etc, of the Song developed continuously through the dynasty, and it makes sense to have articles covering each of those developments. A factoring based on the north and south periods might make sense for the History subarticle, but not for the other subarticles or the dynasty article as a whole.  A parallel north-south structure would amount to a content fork.
 * The Northern Song Dynasty article is a poor model, as it has less detail than the "Northern Song" subsection of the History section of this article, and is almost entirely unreferenced. Kanguole 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with that the north/south articles shouldn't remain with the current existence of the "history" article. There's probably some material that could be moved to the history article as it stands though from the respective north/south pages, so I suggest merging the north/south histories into the main history page. Sam-2727 (talk) 03:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * As the main editor/creator of these articles and nominator of their Featured Topic, I'm going to stay neutral on this since I have no strong feelings about it either way, but I would firmly suggest you add a lead image to your draft article on the Southern Song dynasty, preferably a map so that the reader can easily understand the topic, the time period, and the territorial extent of Song dynastic control over southern China in that period. For that matter the Northern Song dynasty article could use a map as a lead image as well. Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:45, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support split in theory, if the articles can become details enough in their own right. I believe these are two topics worth mentioning in their own articles.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the draft looks really solid so far, I think this would be worthwhile. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I see no problem in principle with a Southern Song article. The main article can stay as it is (no content needs to be removed from the Southern Song section), but the Southern Song article can deal with the topic in greater details. Creating a new article on Southern Song need not affect the main article or any of the other sub-articles. Furthermore, history books often refer to the Southern Song as a distinct period, therefore it warrants its own article on its history. Hzh (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Aside from adding a worthwhile WP:Lead image like a map showing the territory of the Southern Song dynasty at its height, your draft article is far from complete without better sources, preferably English language sources as this is an English online encyclopedia. You seem to have primarily Chinese language sources and there are too few sources cited in your draft. You need to expand both the quality and number of sources cited in the article if it is to be acceptable material even for "Good" level status. Pericles of Athens  Talk 15:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The draft article seems to be a translation from Chinese Wikipedia. It's a start that can be expanded upon with additional English language sources for corroboration later on.Hanbud (talk)

Inaccurate in what it says about compasses
It says that this dynasty saw "the first discernment of true north using a compass." However, though there was a kind of compass invented in this dynasty, that statement is incorrect in two different ways. First, it was not the first compass used to tell north and south, as crude compasses were first used over a thousand years beforehand (though likely also first invented in China), but those consisted simply of a lodestone on a string or floating in water, and rather than being used for navigation were used for divination or mysticism purposes. Secondly, they were magnetic compasses, and thus tell the direction of magnetic north, not true north (it would be a lot more accurate if it just said "north" instead of "true north".) A different kind of compass that tells true north instead of magnetic (the gyrocompass) wasn't invented until the late 19th century and made into practical use until the early 20th (and weren't Chinese inventions either).--108.86.123.251 (talk) 07:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

 * If you read further in the article, this is clarified and completely justified: "Shen Kuo was the first to discern magnetic declination of true north while experimenting with a compass." This is backed up by sources such as Peter Mohn (2003) cited in this instance. The sinologist Nathan Sivin (1995: p. 22) even discusses this at length. He specifies that Shen Kuo used suspended magnetic needles to discover magnetic declination towards the north pole, with "the improved meridian determined by Shen's [astronomical] measurement of the distance between the pole star and true north". Similar discoveries of magnetic declination were made in Europe by around the mid 15th century as evidenced by sundials from Germany. Pericles of Athens  Talk 08:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Isn’t a compass defined to be an instrument that is used to show cardinal directions? I don’t think non-navigational magnetic devices really count as compasses.Also, I suppose that roughly knowing the direction of magnetic north is a discernment of true north. It would be equally reasonable to have north in the text instead of true north though. — MarkH21talk 08:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, then maybe the phrase "discernment of true north using a compass" should end with "combined with astronomical measurements."—MiguelMunoz (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Edit To Be Made
is this dynasty in the "A.D", "B.C" or "C.E" time period? that is information that should be inserted into the sidebar and readings. Ihasabucket8950 (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Very much AD - it begins in 960 AD - I think there's a limit as to how long one needs to go on spelling this out. If in doubt, the dates count up not down. Johnbod (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, thank you for the Clarification. Ihasabucket8950 (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Dates used
For us dummies, a conversion or explanation of CE would be desirable, or at least a reference to such an explanation. Abairheart (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Edit not remove information
@kanguole based on WP:COPYWITHIN and WP:PRESERVE. The added sentences can remain, why don't you help phrasing the information in a way that's acceptable and cohesive instead of removing it, which was counter-productive. Merzostin (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 * Also, given that the paragraph discusses the number of populations, it fits nicely as another figure based information (Economy and Population were always interconnected) Merzostin (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

 * It's poorly written and not a summary of the article. If you want to preserve it, add a better version to the body of the article. And take note that four editors have objected the addition of this poorly written piece of info in the lead.  Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  17:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I only did so because it felt lacking, since the majority of the paragraph only talked about population numbers but barely describe the economy of Song Dynasty which is arguably way more important Merzostin (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with copy-and-paste is not so much copyright, which you could have fixed by attributing it in your edit summary, but that you take a piece of text that was written to fit in one context and put it somewhere very different, where it does not fit. In this case, the Economy of the Song dynasty article is a detailed article on that topic, which is summarized by a 5-paragraph section in this article, alongside many other aspects of the dynasty. This article in turn is summarized in the lead section (which is already on the long side). One would expect that a piece of text taken out of the body of the Economy article would be written at a much greater level of detail than is appropriate for the lead of this overview article. Kanguole 21:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Song dynasty


text:
File:Alleycat.png

Summary
Screenshot of a copyrighted game (IBM's Alley Cat). Considered fair use.

Image information
PNG, 320×200, 2-bit indexed color, sBIT chunk denoting 2 bits for red, 2 bits for green, 2 bits for blue.

title: File:Alleycat.png


text:
Robert Glenn

Robert Glenn may refer to:
 * Robert Glenn (Wisconsin state senator)
 * Robert Glenn Sr., member of the Wisconsin state assembly and father of the state senator
 * Robert Broadnax Glenn, governor of North Carolina

title: Robert Glenn


text:
William Kitchin

William Kitchin may refer to:

 * William Walton Kitchin (1866–1924), Governor of the U.S. state of North Carolina
 * Billy Kitchin (William Farrington Kitchin), English rugby league footballer of the 1910s
 * William H. Kitchin (1837–1901), U.S. Representative from North Carolina.

title: William Kitchin


text:
Angus McLean

Angus McLean may refer to:

 * Angus Wilton McLean (1870–1935), American banker, governor of North Carolina
 * Angus McLean (footballer) (1925–1979), Welsh football player and manager
 * Angus Alexander McLean (1854–1943), Canadian lawyer and politician, MP for Queen's, 1904–1908 and 1911–1917
 * Angus MacLean (1914–2000), Canadian politician and farmer, MP for Queen's, 1951–1968 and Malpeque, 1968–1976
 * Angus MacLean (British Columbia politician) (1891–1972)

title: Angus McLean