Hurricane Camille was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 29, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 5, 2006 Good article nominee Listed April 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 17, 2004, August 17, 2005, August 17, 2009, and August 17, 2019. Current status: Delisted good article

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Weather: Tropical / Atlantic High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Weather, which collaborates on weather and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details. Articles Requested Project Resources Become a Member Project Talk Assessment A-Class Alerts WeatherWikipedia:WikiProject WeatherTemplate:WikiProject WeatherWeather High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tropical cyclones (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Atlantic hurricane work group (assessed as High-importance). This article has been previously selected as the Weather Collaboration of the Fortnight. United States: Louisiana / Mississippi / West Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Louisiana (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mississippi (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject West Virginia (assessed as High-importance). Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can , or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama Virginia High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 17 July 2009, Hurricane Camille was linked from xkcd, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.

Archives

Archive 1

---

There is mention of Camille attaining sustained winds of 190mph, 200mph, 205mph and 210mph all within this article. Can someone please determine which one of these is correct and clean up this contradiction? --Domentolen 10:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one really knows, but we can put for susytained winds between 190-210 mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.84.203 (talk) 04:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All i can say is that information can come unexpected. After all it took them years before they finally classified Hurricane Andrew as cat. 5. They may raise Camille wind strength or decrease it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.84.203 (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind strengh is hard to pinpoint, as the storm was so strong, it destroyed the anemometers before reaching peak wind speed on land. That being said, it is definitely the strongest cyclone in terms of wind speed to ever strike land.24.250.74.34 (talk) 12:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed. This page on Camille has gone through so many uninformed and misinformed edits that truth is now irrevocably intertwined with fiction. For example, all references to the 3 Army Corps of Engineers post-Camille studies have vanished from the Wikipedia article. No longer, for instance, is there even a mention of the astounding fact that the Mississippi River flowed backwards for 125 miles, to a point upstream of New Orleans, nor the fact that at least a dozen ocean-going freighters were beached, nor any mention of the impact on the offshore oil platforms. Also vanished is any reference to the series of 1969-1970 U.S. Senate hearings on the federal response to Camille, which could certainly be useful to anyone trying to understand the Katrina debacle.

Instead, you guys fuss around about the hurricane party. You keep changing the official windspeeds and you still keep getting them wrong, and you don't even clarify the difference between sustained winds and gusts. As for your citations, you consider those to be authoritative sources?

I've read the 2000 pages of Senate testimony, the ACOE studies, and I've interviewed dozens of surviving victims.

I was initially inclined to edit the article but, no, I won't waste my time. Some idiot will simply jump in and cancel out what I've written and replace it with uninformed nonsense.

216.227.27.238 (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Zeb[reply]

He's right, of course. This article spends too much time on the alleged party and not enough time on more important matters, such as beached freighters or the hearings that occurred after Camille. We need references for the party section, if it's going to survive, in addition to its being scaled back and being worded less wishy-washy. If not, I could see someone dropping the article back down to B class. It certainly won't make FA, as it stands right now, without a lot of work. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For note, the information claiming the Hurricane Party did not happen directly contradicts the testimony of Hubert and Josephine Duckworth, father and mother of one of the victims, as recorded in the work Category 5: The Story of Camille; Lessons Unlearned from America's Most Violent Hurricane, copyright 2005 (with an afterword that discusses the extensive similarities with Katrina). On another note, it was eight who survived, instead of perished; the number dead was by far the higher. --Chr.K. (talk) 14:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Ben Duckworth, their son, was one of the survivors, and thus eyewitness to the events. --Chr.K. (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since its pretty much confirmed that the party never happened, and that Gerlach was eventually convicted for murdering her husband. She was the one claiming to be the sole survivor and that there was a party. The rest of the survivors apparently were those who were either helping to prepare the town for the hurricane or were unable to evacuate. As far as the work Category 5: The Story of Camille, its false. The Duckworth's son survived the hurricane, and there were 8 deaths. Duckworth himself states that there wasn't a party, and that he was aksed to stay and look after someone who could not be evacuated due to a recent surgery. All references to the party should actually be removed from the article. Mrschwen (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN.

Sourcing:

1. There are several sections and statements that are lacking sources. Since the GA criteria have changed significantly concerning sourcing since the article was passed in 2006, several changes need to be made. The "Storm History" and "Comparisons to Hurricane Katrina" need further references along with the statements listed below.
2. "In all, 8,931 people were injured, 5,662 homes were destroyed, and 13,915 homes experienced major damage, with many of the fatalities being coastal residents who had refused to evacuate."
3. "Alabama also experienced damage along U.S. Highway 90: 26,000 homes and over 1,000 businesses were wiped out completely across the state of Alabama."
4. "Totals say that 3,800 homes and businesses were completely destroyed."
5. "Camille caused moderate rainfall in Tennessee and Kentucky of between 3 and 5 inches (130 mm),[13] helping to relieve a drought in the area.[citation needed]"
6. "In Nelson County alone, 133 bridges were washed out, while some entire communities were under water.[citation needed]"
7. "A popular rumor has Brugger telling a radio station during an interview that he wouldn't leave because since Camille's surge had not affected the inn, Katrina's would not either." Got rid of it. Even if it were sourced, I can't see rumors making an encyclopedia. Thegreatdr (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. "Prior to the collapse of the Richelieu Apartments, Ben Duckworth shined a flashlight down a stairwell and found the water within one step of the third-story floor; this establishes a surge height of 28 feet (8.5 m) at that spot at that time. About 15 minutes later, the building collapsed and the evidence vanished with it."

Other issues:

1. "One of its rigs due to both extreme wave action and a mudslide at the Gulf of Mexico's bottom." This sentence needs to be reworded.
2. The "Retirement" section should be merged into the "Aftermath" or "Naming" section since there isn't enough information to warrant a subsection.

Side notes (Not necessary to complete these for the review):

1. I tagged Image:Camille1969filledrainblk.gif to be copied over to Wikimedia Commons. If anyone is interested in doing so, it shouldn't take too long to do. Done - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 23:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. It may be beneficial for the article to address the issues raised in the prior section on this talk page ("Complaints about this article"). The article is broad enough to cover the topic but the other information would be beneficial for improving the article and helping it to advancing to higher classes.

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I guess I've been enjoying spring break too much! Since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category 5: The Story of Camille, Lessons Unlearned from America's Most Violent Hurricane makes it very plain how this system was, bar none, the most powerful meteorological phenomenon ever to impact the United States; the references in this article to people calling Katrina "much worse" are in fact from residents in the Biloxi region, which was more than 40 miles away from "ground zero" where the Camille eyewall came ashore. The descriptions in that work of the conditions that existed between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., August 17-18, 1969 in the Pass Christian and Bay of St. Louis are simply stupify the mind, and as such, I am going to rewrite sections of this article with mind to source it directly to the deeply researched Category 5 work. --Chr.K. (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate issue: The second table has the rankings done incorrectly. The two storms before the last one should be tied for 9th rank, and the last one should be rank 11. But I cannot find this table in the code for the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.86.119 (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on a project to create an new article which will tentatively be entitled "Hurricane Camille in Virginia", which I hope will be a collaborative effort. For now, I think a subpage "sandbox" is the best starting place. Please see User:Vaoverland/project/Hurricane Camille in Virginia and add any comments, etc. Thanks, Vaoverland (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see referencing style (and some cases, missing references) as the biggest hindrance to re-submitting this article for GA at some point in the future. You all see anything else which needs to be improved? Thegreatdr (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice info that Camille was absorbed (the right word?) by the cold front to the south of Atlantic Canada. Here [1] (p. 7/299) it says "encountered a cold front and was modified rapidly into an extratropical system". The does anyone know what happened to that one extratopical system. It should have hit the European continent at some stage.

The reason I ask is that I heard/read someplace (can't find any ref. right now) that Camille transformed into a mid-latitude cyclone, and that it had something to do with the hurricane that hit western Sweden on 22 of September 1969. That hurricane (ref. [2]) felled 29 million m³ of standing trees, killing 10. In short the most devastating weather system to hit Sweden during 1969, and the second worst ever (on record) considering the amount of fallen trees.

Many thanks for any info!.--Paracel63 (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to prove one way or another whether or not the extratropical system that absobed Camille was also the storm which hit Sweden. I would say that it is highly unlikely though, based on the fact that Camille was absorbed off the coast of Newfoundland on August 22 and the storm in Sweden took place on September 22. It more than likely would not have taken a month for the extratropical cyclone to move from that location to Sweden and if it did, it undoubtedly would have interacted with multiple other extratropical cyclones making it virtually impossible to tell if Camille's remnants had in any way contributed to the storm in Sweden. Lou1986 (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It normally takes 3-7 days for systems to cross the North Atlantic, so a month would be way too long. Next time I go to the NOAA library I'll look up where Camille's extratropical cyclone tracked. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input! Yes, considering the month in between it would seem implausible. Probably the one that connected those two hurricanes was no meteorogically educated person and just acted upon info of those two huge hurricanes only weeks apart. Then, maybe some other tropical cyclone might have been involved here - Debbie? (the others seem to be off track and/or time even more)--Paracel63 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Luckily, the central library has their new microfilm scanner, so when I visited yesterday I was able to look up what happenned to Camille. Although the NHC track ends at 12z on August 22, the extratropical portion of Camille's track extends to 06z on the 23rd, when it moved about 300 miles south of Cape Farewell, Greenland before becoming absorbed into a larger cyclone to its north. Debbie persisted as an extratropical cyclone and moved ashore Sweden early on August 27 before becoming absorbed by a stronger cyclone moving northeast near southeastern Finland, so it's not Debbie either. As for the system which impacted Sweden on September 22, the system started as a weak frontal wave offshore New England on September 18 and had no connection to a tropical cyclone. The track extensions for Camille and Debbie will show up in the "CLIQR" database sometime in the next week, along with values for their radius of outermost closed isobar. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of this section claims that Camille began as a tropical wave off the African Coast, yet the adjacent tracking map suggests the storm had its genesis in the doldrums. Berberry (talk) 08:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cyclone was spawned by a tropical wave which moved offshore Africa. Reference 4 supports this. The tropical cyclone did not form until it reached the western Caribbean. Both statements can be correct. Thegreatdr (talk) 02:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 39 points to a broken link because the DOI is incorrect for the BAMS Camille paper. Please change the DOI from https://doi.org/10.1175%2FBAMS-D-14-00137.2 to https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00137.1. The Camille paper is an excellent resource and should be available to readers especially given the upcoming 50th anniversary of the hurricane's landfall. Thanks! Taifuu no kaze (talk) 13:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 04:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. In the Virginia section, Nelson County is mentioned five times and linked once, but the link happens on the third appearance ("worst was in Nelson County"). Could you move the link from that place to the first appearance (just after the Huffmans)?
2. In the Virginia section is a link to Columbia, Virginia. It's the only link to a town that mentions the state. Could you pipe the link so it's just Columbia? The name of the section makes it clear what state Columbia is in. 208.95.51.53 (talk) 20:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: please see Special:Diff/923496582. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 22:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the final couple of sentences from the "Records" section:

• They're entirely unsourced
• They aren't records
• They fail to explain how the situation's different from 2020, aside from the use of male names
• They simply don't make much sense without sources or explanation

Thank you. 64.203.187.75 (talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed,  Done – Thjarkur (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Hurricane Party" section, please fix the quotation marks from the following paragraph per MOS:QUOTEMARKS:

Another survivor, Ben Duckworth, has expressed irritation at the story. ′′There was no hurricane party,′′ Duckworth reiterated in 2001. ′′We were exhausted from boarding up windows and helping the police move cars. We were too tired to party. I can't tell you why that story persists, or why people didn't put two and two together. I guess the hurricane party makes a good story.′′

173.166.187.68 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PlanetJuice ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:48, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include John Grisham's The Boys From Biloxi under Publications as it was a pertinent plot element therein. 102.248.1.150 (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 12:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall this article is solid. But the "Records" section has a couple of issues. I think the text about it having 190 mph winds should just be removed, since-- as the text itself acknowledges-- the storm was reanalyzed and found to have lower winds. The 190 mph is just no longer accepted. Also, I question the prominence of the Hurricane Severity Index. It's put at the very top of the Records section. This scale was developed by a private company and is not widely used-- I'm a hurricane expert and I'd never even heard of it-- and giving it such prominence is misleading to folks who are new to this subject matter. The Saffir-Simpson scale, central pressure, and estimated maximum winds are all more important than this novelty scale that is not widely used. 162.235.28.197 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the modern reanalysis of this event, the landfall location in Mississippi was deemed to be Waveland, not Bay Saint Louis. Here's the official, peer-reviewed reanalysis with the corrected landfall location: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/kieper-landsea-beven-bams-2016.pdf 162.235.28.197 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It shouldn't have taken this long, but I've now updated it. Tavantius (talk) 02:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]