# Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado

Hooks ALT1 and ALT2 are approved. ALT5 is also approved with an online source given here and an offline source cited in the article, accepted in good faith. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Small note, I can verify this source does indeed have 798 deaths mentioned for this tornado. The number 798 does not appear, but there is a table mentioning all the deaths and their location. Per WP:CALC, that gives 798. Just making a note here of this, since in this edit summary, Departure– stated it failed verification. I have confirmed 798 deaths would be sourced from this citation, thus, not a failed verification. I am not reverting as this is a controversial edit, but I wanted to clear that fact up. It is not a failed verification, just a controversial edit being reverted. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:58, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The article lists the names of most of the dead bar the huge figures in each major town. A full list of every single name (almost every name) can be found by searching on the findagrave website. In which each name will have their cause of death being attributed to the tornado on their profile and this was partly how individual names were determined. Just want to make it clear the 798 number is not random, it was a very thorough process in which each individual was determined. As the wikipedia page for the deadliest tornadoes in the americas even states, the 695 figure from the red cross is missing many later deaths from injuries. I don't want an edit war either, I just want the information to be all-encompassing and as accurate as possible. For several counties, the respective historical societies provided us with a list of the registered dead (for example in Jackson County where over 300 were listed as tornado victims). Each name and location was provided and mapped out. Dovah12333 (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I still disagree about it's reliability, several people shown are tornado YouTubers and calling them reliable could very well be a complete stretch. Also, per WP:RSPFINDAGRAVE, Find-a-Grave is WP:GUNREL and thus studies using that can't be verified. — EF5  02:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright then. Let me outline a few thoughts on this.
The source is self-published as a WordPress site. As @WeatherWriter points out, this does not mean it's automatically unreliable.
The WordPress site as a whole appears to only have this single entry.
Of the four authors on "the Tri-Team", the only one with any qualifications to speak of surrounding specifically severe weather is Andrew Hagen (see NHC staff profile). TornadoTRX and June First are entertainment first and foremost and don't appear to inherently be qualified as secondary sources.
As for Hagen, he appears to be a subject-matter expert on certain hurricane and tropical cyclone-related topics. This is tornado history. While Hagen also appears to be affiliated with the American Meteorological Society, this "study" doesn't appear to have been done in any sort of official context.
The sources cited are in a heap at the end. This is to various libraries and historical societies, as well as to six other seemingly reliable papers. Due to nothing being cited inline, there's no way to know what came from where.
WP:REDFLAG seems very relevant to this matter. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I think another 103 deaths on top of what's already the deadliest tornado in US history is "extraordinary", and a blog with a single "study" made by people with no qualifications bumping up the figure another 15 percent from literally every other reliable source available isn't going to fly.
As @EF5 brings up, Find-a-Grave is unreliable to source this claim. I don't have any proof that this particular study uses it, however, if any particular study did, its reliability would be based on other factors of editorial oversight instead of the cop-out "unreliable".
If, by contrast, the source had been published or reviewed or otherwise acknowledged by the relevant authority, for instance the American Meteorological Society, Thomas P. Grazulis, or NWS Paducah (in a way beyond giving vague "the original toll was an undercount" comments), then the veracity of this claim would be less in question.
As is, I'm going to stand by my removal. I am willing to consider any evidence to the contrary for the death toll being higher (didn't Storm Data have the death toll a bit higher too?) but nothing that involves manual sifting through records, tombstones, and self-published blogs and YouTube videos should be anyone's first answer in refuting this. Departure– (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
What about the fact that we acquired lists of the deceased from each historical society from their own records. Whilst the cumulative nature of that number was not 798 it was substantially over 700. And as Doswell, Grazulis and others have already made their statement that the 695 figure is definitely an underestimate and so I am not sure it is an "extraordinary claim especially when it has been agreed upon by experts and known that the death toll is higher. And also considering the original source for 695 is woefully outdated and would fall under that guideline on wikipedia. Being given by the red cross in 1926 and before a lot of later deaths. Dovah12333 (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Furthermore, no other source has even attempted to sift through the records of deaths until the July 2024 project. Doswell himself in a presentation stated that their team did not focus on the death toll at all. And as for the regional officially listed dead (such as 234 in Murphysboro, 69 in De Soto etc), the cumulative number of all these regions which are already accepted lists a number greater than the aforementioned 695. So based on all of this, the 695 figure should essentially fall under the outdated information category. Dovah12333 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I also just want to point out that the article also goes through the death toll at each region as the article progresses. So If you haven't already read the full article in detail it may not be clear what came from what. Dovah12333 (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I'm just not buying the figure given the source provided. If you have a different source I'd be willing to consider having the claim in the article; as of now this is challenged due to the source seeming unreliable. The outdated figures from reliable sources outweigh the updated figures from unreliable sources in this instance. Departure– (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
If you were involved with this, Dovah, what source was used for finding the toll? If it's solely Find-a-Grave, this discussion's good as over because that website is completely unreliable per WP:RSPS. — EF5  15:25, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I get the impression Dovah12333 was involved in the creation of this source, and thus this discussion falls under a conflict-of-interest. Pinging @WeatherWriter: cool if we close this? It's apparent to me that this isn't going anywhere as is. Departure– (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Since this isn’t a formal discussion (like an RFC), it doesn’t have to be closed. If it isn’t going anywhere, then all parties can agree to disagree. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Ok, so the process of determining the dead in the project was originally derived from the data collected by Robert H. Johns, Charles Doswell III, Matthew S, Gilmore, Donald Burgess, Steven Piltz,and John Hart. They made several publications in 2013. Their data was given to us by Matthew in the form of a kmz file for google earth which holds an interactive map of the damage and the names of every farm, dwelling and or person who was in the path and recorded. Using this as a basis, we went in and began delving into the files for each respective name, data on the deceased was already partially recorded by Doswell et al, so it was more of filling in the gaps. When it came to finding the dead, we used official records from obituaries, acquired from documents provided by historical societies, individuals, libraries and or newspapers. We then tracked down those who were verified to have been injured by the tornado and inquired as to their cause of death. Often, in cases where it was tornado related, there was written documentation linking it to the sustained injuries. Some historical societies had already begun compiling a list of the deceased in their own regional areas, which we then acquired and used to guide the process further. Through a process that took well over 9 months, we examined thousands of names and researched their cause of deaths and managed to narrow it down. Of note, is that the listed 695 dead by the red cross differs from regional death tolls quite substantially. Further complicating matters, some of those counted, would not be directly linked to the tornado per today's standards, having various degrees of removal (eg. one person died a few days later from crashing their vehicle from the debris of fallen buildings). So for simplicity's sake, we abided by similar standards used in 1925 and included those who had died from secondary causes as well (like fire). Respectfully, before coming to a judgement on the reliability of the article, please take the time to actually read it in full, as it covers the dead as it goes on. If you so wish, I can list every single person included in the 798 figure by name, and provide the lists and documents provided by societies like Jackson County Historical Society. Also of note, many contemporary newspapers did list many more dead (like 828 etc), and the names and locations listed for many victims were often confused and mismatched. This took quite a considerable amount of time on our part to accurately locate the location of each death, which in some instances in large towns like West Frankfort and Murphysboro, proved impossible due to uncertainty as to where they were prior to the tornado. In the case of the latter town, more than 20 were unidentifiable per official records so the names aren't explicitly known, but they are still listed on old records and newspapers. The figure of 798 is not expected to be directly all-encompassing, but is a better representation than the red cross number of 695, which differs from the original figure provided by the weather bureau of 689, so it seems even then there were regional discrepancies. And our findings align with the expectations and statements of figures such as Grazulis and Charles Doswell, who both cited that the death toll was likely far greater than the reported 695, rightly so. I can also provide our online copy of the full interactive damage path. Perhaps it is easier to do so over another form such as discord.
But in general, being reliable was the aim of the article to begin with, as there hasn't been a detailed write up on the full path until the article was published. And when there was, it was focused on specific regions (like Bob Johns and his book on the Franklin, Hamilton and White County areas). I just want to make it clear that the number is not from nowhere, but from months of careful research and documentation from third parties, including individual descendants from some victims, and individuals from local libraries and societies. Angela Mason also aided to an extent with her book and after contacting her directly. Find A grave was not used as a source, rather a tool to compile much of the names into a virtual cemetery. But this was left unfinished due to the fact that it did not have all those names registered anyway. IT WAS NOT USED AS A SOURCE. Dovah12333 (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
The problems with the source have nothing to do with how it may have been assembled but rather due to the fact that on its face it is self-published. By all means, you could pursue some sort of acknowledgement or intent to reassess from the AMS or NWS, but due to the fact that this appears to be from a single-purpose WordPress blog, the claims it makes can't be reliably verified, regardless of how the blog got its data.
If "being reliable was the aim of the article to begin with", then it shouldn't have been on WordPress. Any form of independent verification, such as publication by, again, a subject-area authority, would suffice, but as of now it's just a random website on the internet that a Wikipedia editor that claims to be involved asserts is reliable (or, in layman's terms, "bro, trust me"). Even though its methodology seems semi-professional and would likely be accepted as a source from another body, since WordPress blogs can be made by just about anyone and are not themselves subject to any editorial oversight besides that which the blog's creators themselves subject their work to, they are not a reliable source for claims on Wikipedia.
Even though Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source, the project still has relatively high standards for citing content, and I hate to say but WordPress, in this context, isn't up to that bar. Whether or not the information in the study is factual or not is another topic that isn't within Wikipedia's pervue. Departure– (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Alright so what about a middle ground. Grazulis is a subject specific expert and so is Charles Doswell, both have stated explicitly that the death toll was in all probability, greater than the established 695. Could we not therefore cite them and include a note that states the toll is potentially greater. That would probably appeal to all parties. Dovah12333 (talk) 19:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
I don't see why we couldn't. Near the death toll a note saying "...this figure is likely an undercount" would be acceptable, sourced to Grazulis or Doswell directly. Departure– (talk) 19:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Here is Charles Doswell on the death toll in his presentation. At the 45 minute mark roughly. Let me get the Grazulis statement.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEz21uvzXtQ&t=2341s Dovah12333 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
Also of note is this report from 1925. It lists the deaths as over 740 and is currently on the NWS page. https://www.weather.gov/media/pah/1925_Tornado/March%201925%20Illinois%20Weather%20Bureau%20Climatological%20Data%20Report.pdf Dovah12333 (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
This article here makes a reference to Grazulis and his statement as well. Citing his book Significant Tornadoes, 1993, page 193. https://www.usdeadlyevents.com/1925-march-18-tornadoes-esp-tri-state-tornado-ilinmo-695-alkytn-740-792/ Dovah12333 (talk) 21:20, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
So are we ok to change the article? In which case I will leave it to you. I appreciate our discussion though. Dovah12333 (talk) 00:18, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
I changed the article. Please check the source as I want to make sure you're happy with everything. Dovah12333 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2025 (UTC)