Talk:1997 Jarrell tornado

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
(Redirected from
Talk:1997 Prairie Dell-Jarrell tornado
)
WikiProject iconDeath Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Is the "Dead Man Walking" tornado photograph copyrighted?

CLOSED
Image copyright discussions occur on the Commons, not Wikipedia. See comment at the very bottom of discussion for links to related Commons discussions. Duplicate discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?. Closing as valid, content discussion is turning into a more or less forum.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I know that it was taken by Scott Beckwith, who allowed the NWS to use his images of the tornado and damage. Would this mean that the "Dead Man Walking" photo is PD?

my creations!) 20:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The only way it would be PD is if and only if you can locate it on a .gov URL. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see. It is one of the most famous tornado photographs ever taken, and would 100% be needed in this article if it is PD.
my creations!) 20:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I found the photo sequence on a .gov PDF published by the NWS about the tornado, and Scott Beckwith is attributed to it. I'm pretty sure the photo is not copyrighted, as every photo I have seen from Beckwith so far has either been given to the NWS and put in PD or just doesn't have a copyright.
my creations!) 21:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nevermind, I have found the entire sequence. I will upload them shortly.
my creations!) 23:01, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
PUT NON-FREE RATIONALE ON IT!! Based on a talk page on WP:WEATHER, it is likely that the picture IS copyrighted. It needs to either have a non-free rationale or it needs to be DELETED. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'l try to get it listed under non-free rationale, it is vital to the article itself.
my creations!) 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
And I’ll add that some images on a .gov url are NOT public domain. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some. National Weather Service images are public domain, this has been confirmed. Same goes for NOAA, which is where most of these images are from.
my creations!) 15:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
(edit conflict) There is only two clauses for things not being public domain on the .gov websites: (1) it has the copyright watermark (©) on the image or (2) it is by Getty Images. There are 0 other exceptions, as determined by the Commons. Attribution watermarks (even if large ones) do not count. I am just making that note since it was brought up that some things aren't free-to-use on .gov websites. See Template:PD-NWS on the Commons for further information. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 15:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d like a link to the site where the image is. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is literally the reason the image is being deleted.
my creations!) 18:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
https://www.weather.gov/media/pub/pdf/sdata/051997.pdf it clearly states that the person who took the picture was NOT an employee of the National Weather Service. I’ll do some digging but let’s continue assuming that it’s copyrighted until we know for sure. 12.74.221.43 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can’t find anything on the disclaimer at NCDC about copyright. But nothing saying anything is copyrighted (or in the public domain either). 12.74.221.43 (talk) 03:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is stupid at this point. English Wikipedia does not determine copyright stuff, the Commons does. If there is a problem with any image, open a discussion on the Commons. The direct image which started this discussion File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg is currently nominated for deletion on the Commons. The other image referenced by others and the one currently in use on the article, File:Dead man walking Jarrell.jpg is, as far as I am aware, public domain due to being used, without a copyright watermark, on a .gov URL website. If you believe otherwise, nominate it for deletion on the Commons. I am closing this discussion as this has turned from a discussion about the content to more or less a forum with the same repeated question, which is already solved/answered (or will be answered within the week on the Commons). The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft-space Discussion

I am going to be guiding

good article criteria layout, however this is not a formal GAN or anything like that. Just making that note for future editors. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

  • 6b
    • All images make sense for the article at the time of this message. If this was a formal good article nomination (GAN), this point would pass. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I'll check that off, and I do have more PD damage photos, which I'll upload later.
    my creations!) 22:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  1. For
    WP:OR
    ).
  2. Same thing for File:1997 Jarrell forming.png & File:1997 Jarrell tornado roping.png, which has the current captions of "The tornado as it was forming" & "The tornado as it was roping out outside of Jarrell". The source with the images does not directly state the tornado was forming/roping out, so a source needs to be added or the caption needs to be rewritten.
The other sources have solid captions that are verifiable and good. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll just rewrite the captions.
my creations!) 22:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I think we are now good image-wise, as every major part of the article has a companion image
my creations!) 23:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

MemeGod27: We can add notes about each point (see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for what each point states) and add comments under it similar to a talk page discussion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
my creations!) 16:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Article has been assessed as B-class, I'll try to work it to GA :D
my creations!) 00:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Unfinished sentence in article

In the section "Tracking into Jarrell", the 5th sentence is cutoff: "The tornado tore off asphalt as it crossed County Roads 308, 305, and 307; the thickness of the asphalt pavement was roughly.". Hopefully someone knows the thickness and can complete the sentence. Jamezkoe (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've got that. The original first edits of the draft were a copy-paste from the outbreak article, but I refined and worded apparently (almost) everything. I'll get to it as soon as possible! :)
my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Reworded*
my creations!) 21:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Issue has been fixed.
my creations!) 00:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The “Fatilities” section should be removed

It seems to be entirely composed of sentences taken directly from previous parts of the articles, word for word. This whole article needs a clean up Jamezkoe (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked over it, and can I get an example of where it is copied word for word besides "all 27 fatalities occurred at the Double Creek Estates"? Thanks! :D
my creations!) 22:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
1. The following passage exists word for word in Both the "Damage to Jarrell" and "Fatalities" sections: "The high intensity of the Jarrell tornado left those in its path with little recourse; most homes in Double Creek Estates were built on cement slab foundations and few had a basement or any form of storm shelter; nineteen people sought refuge in a single storm cellar." 2. In the previously mentioned "Damage to Jerrell", it states "Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were also destroyed. In total, the tornado dealt $10–20 million in damage to the neighborhood. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". In the fatalities section it says Three businesses adjacent to Double Creek Estates were destroyed. Around 300 cattle grazing in a nearby pasture were killed and some were found 0.25 miles (0.40 km) away. Hundreds of cattle were also dismembered and a few cows were also skinned by the tornado.". Jamezkoe (talk) 08:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, I shouldn't have titled it as I did. I think a section dedicated to the victims is wholly deserved, but the state that it's currently in is simply disrespectful. Jamezkoe (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I'll go ahead and change the content/reword it. The fatalities section is 100% needed, as this tornado very unfortunately caused some extremely gruesome and disturbing wounds to people.
my creations!) 10:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 14 May 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 09:10, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

my creations!) 15:57, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

The event is notable for being the "Jarrell" tornado solely, and should be represented properly in the title as the "1997 Jarrell Tornado." None of the sources refer to the event as the Prairie Dell tornado Wikiwillz (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per Wikiwillz. ChrisWx 🌀 (talk - contribs) 01:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Notability stems entirely from the impacts in Jarrell. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a way to close this? It's been 8 days and everyone is in support.
    my creations!) 11:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self promotion claim?

@Headbomb (alt):, you rececently removed part of the page + a source under the rational of "self promotion / self published". The author, Marlene Bradford, is a PhD'ed meteorologist from Texas A&M University with a doctorial on tornado forecasting. I think this qualifies as a subject-expert. Btw, the author is academically published in the field of meteorology as well ([1]), with a publication in the American Meteorological Society. Could you explain further on your rational for removing it and/or could you re-add the information? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 19:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article claimed "Multiple books have been written and published on the subject of the tornado, the most notable being Marlene Bradford's "Incredible Destruction in Central Texas: The Jarrell Tornado"." This is an extraordinary claim supported by no source whatsoever. This is a self-published book, putting it at the bottom of notability of any books dealing with this tornado. Wikipedia does not exist to promote the works of self published authors, no matter how 'qualified' they are.
talk) 19:34, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep, per Weather Event Writer's rationale. Just because it's flagged by a bot doesn't make it a self-promo.
my creations!) 19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Don't start an edit war until this discussion is complete. That's not how it is done here.
my creations!) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The "Notable" part has been fixed, everything is good now.
my creations!) 19:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
It hasn't. There's no sources save the self-published book itself. This is spam at worse, and
talk) 19:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Sure, it's "spam". I'm done with that part, I'll add something else that does have a reliable source.
my creations!) 19:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Infobox image

Since there is an active copyright discussion on the "Dead Man Walking" photo, we need a new image for the infobox. Any thoughts? While the tornado was a wedge in its' F5 phase, it also had extremely high windspeeds even as a rope. Honestly anything would represent it. Thanks! :)

my creations!) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Nevermind, I have found one that fits.
my creations!) 14:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Infobox image (2)

This is more of a continuation of the previous message, but I found about 30 other photos relating to the tornado that could fit in the info box:

- 1. This one of the tornado at F4+ intensityA -2. The tornado as it was strengthening -3. The tornado at peak intensity

For other images, see Category:1997 Jarrell tornado on commons.

WxTrinity (talk to me!) 21:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1997_Jarrell_tornado&oldid=1226624332"