Talk:Tornado myths/Archive 1

Untitled

The "myth" about right turning tornadoes was removed. Often (but not always) a good sign on radar of when a tornado is on the ground is when the supercell turns right of the main flow of the system. The article had stated that tornadoes move in the direction of the system that formed them. That is not always true, the circulation can some times cause the cell the move in a slightly different direction, a turn to the right. The rest of the storms can be moving North East while the tornadic storm begins moving due East.

More over, the "myth" was not debunked with any factual statements or sources.

-

Hokay, I made a bunch of changes.

• For one, I removed tornado plasma--if it's not debunked, it's not a myth, and doesn't fit on this page.
• I reordered the myths in what I considered to be descending importance.
• I wouldn't have added the "false" bit after the myths--I think that's implied by the topic of the article--but given the big bold Safety Alert I saw on the Andover,_Kansas_Tornado page, figured I'd leave it.
• For the trailer park section, I really wanted to put "this is nearly more an ironic statement than an actual myth, as no one with a brain really thinks tornadoes go looking for mobile homes" but I couldn't work out how to do that NPOV.
• I wanted to hit that intro sentence too but I couldn't work it out.

--Spinn 19:55, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

I hit that intro. :) There's still a lot of room for improvement, though.

I think the trailer park section could stay listed as a myth. Not everyone has a brain. And certainly not everyone who lives in a trailer park.... TheMadBaron 10:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Heh, um, oops. Well, it is also true that there's no point in opening your windows during an active volcano.

--Spinn 16:00, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

It might give your cat half a chance to escape the lava.... TheMadBaron 16:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the page looks a lot better than it did. I think the edits are good too, and going in the right direction, so I removed the clean-up tag. At some point, I'll hunt up some sources, when I started this page I got pre-occupied with something else and forgot the external sources...

Hard Raspy Sci 23:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I moved the Super Outbreak myths here, they weren't necessarily "first debunked" then, nor do they belong in that article. Thanks to those that have improved this page so far, it still should be further cleaned up. Evolauxia 22:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of ending each myth introduction with the word "false"? It's an article about Tornado MYTHS. The "false" is a bit redundant. 63.215.122.7 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

A myth can still be true... --Kotjze 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename

I've suggested a rename for this article. The title as it stands, "Tornado myths", is redundant and erroneous, and is in conflict with Wikipedia's article on Mythology(this having nothing to do myths in their right definition, but is more about misconceptions, erroneous beliefs and urban legends) and as such directly makes Wikipedia contradict itself, which is unwanted. I don't think this is too problematic a scenario, but I would like to hear some of your thoughts on the matter before going through with the namechange. Lemegeton 11:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose In contradicting itself, Wikipedia follows the English language, which is "large, and contains multitudes". Using English is policy; attempting to reform it is not - and is futile. Septentrionalis 15:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It may well that Wikipedia follows the English language, and that English vocabulary is broad, I never said anything to the contrary. however the fact remains that the use of "myth" to mean a fictious story or half-truth is popular usage, and Wikipedia employing a collequial use contradicts its purpose as an encyclodia. For example, an article shouldn't say, when describing the villain of a book: "he lol'ed when the city was destroyed", even if the word 'lol' enters mainstream usage. Wikipedia furthermore does not employ euphemisms or idioms(as in any encyclopedia) for the same reason. Also, I'm not attempting to reform anything. According to many dictionary definitions, myth can also(and did originally) mean a traditional story or narrative that embodies the belief or beliefs of a group of people; a definition that has been part of its literary definition since atleast 1830, while its connotation to fictitious or imaginary is earliest attested to 1840. Its meaning in Ancient Greek do not contain connotations to fictious, but means a narrative or oral discourse and designates a cultural or religious narrative, with no specifications whether it is true or false. Also, please see Encyclopedia Britannica on "myth" and "mythology", as it have lengthy essays about both, where it disregards any connotations to fictious or rumor. Lemegeton 20:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Britannica is attempting to reform usage; and its staff may be entitled to do so; we aren't. Septentrionalis 23:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, sure, whatever. Except that it isn't so much "reforming the usage", but using the right word according to the concept, by following the definition which is otherwise common in anthropology and religious studies: a traditional narrative or story, which is believed to be true by the group which narrates it. Its meaning of fiction or half-truth is popular usage, and isn't the original English meaning. Also, as Mythology is considered a core topic here on Wikipedia, it should take precedence over other not-so "core"-articles, especially something like this, which is: a listing of misconceptions and urban legends regarding tornadoes. - Lemegeton 14:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Result: no move

No consensus among the two editors. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Renewed move request

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus for move. Joelito (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lemegeton has proposed this move again; I continue to Oppose it - I now oppose it strongly, as a waste of time, and effort to evade policy. Septentrionalis 15:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, myth does not neccessarily equal mythology. The article name is fine. Leave it as is. Kevin_b_er 23:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.