Talk:Dust Bowl: Difference between revisions

Line 64: Line 64:

4. A dust storm “producing enough static electricity to power New York.” p. 221. Again, not possibly plausible.

4. A dust storm “producing enough static electricity to power New York.” p. 221. Again, not possibly plausible.

Furthermore, newspaper accounts by Associated Press and United Press correspondents sent to the region for weeks to report on the dusters including Black Sunday fail to make any mention related to static electricity even though they experienced their full fury.

Egan’s book contains no citations for these suspect statements. The facts of the Dust Bowl are impressive enough without such embellishment. Unless corroborated by a reliable source, this book should not be cited. [[User:Yankeepapa13|Yankeepapa13]] ([[User talk:Yankeepapa13|talk]]) 20:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

Egan’s book contains no citations for these suspect statements. The facts of the Dust Bowl are impressive enough without such embellishment. Unless corroborated by a reliable source, this book should not be cited. [[User:Yankeepapa13|Yankeepapa13]] ([[User talk:Yankeepapa13|talk]]) 20:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management 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.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale.

To-do list for Dust Bowl: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2007-05-31 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Expand : # Assess death toll using referenced sources Assess economic damage using referenced sources Explain causes in more detail, add references Give cursory coverage to precedents, if any, for the drought and the subsequent dust storms. More clearly discuss links with Great Depression in the United States, both here and there. NPOV : When expanding, be sure to add thorough coverage of impact in Canada/Saskatchawan to avoid americentrism.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

It is not a controversial are article. 71.223.76.108 (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 September 2025 and 21 December 2025. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Grapie352 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Grapie352 (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “of them” to “of the” in the first sentence of the article. Debriefed (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Already done, the edit doing that was reverted by the time I got here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on in this section? Numerous grammatical mistakes and errors. Fal2x (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A student editor added most of this for a Wiki Education-supported class at Hofstra. Same editor also made several suboptimal changes to existing text. Class is over, so I would just delete rather than try to salvage. diff.Dialectric (talk) 01:56, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There’s huge portions of this article that are hard/harder to read because of the grammar. Different tenses, words spelled incorrectly, incomplete sentences. Lyssy x (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Egan’s book is cited for the assertion that static electricity can “short a car,” meaning that the engine stalls because of damage to its ignition system. This claim is found on pages 7, 88, 195, 197, and 204. As examples of the automotive ignitions systems of that era, Ford’s Model A (1927-1932) and Model B (1932-1934) used Kettering ignition systems. The Kettering system (or breaker point system) was introduced in 1912 and was the industry standard for over 70 years. This is a simple electromechanical system that is not affected by charge accumulation in the overall car. The far more likely cause is the direct effects of dust sucked into the engine intake system. The Model A had no air filter, while the Model B did.

Second, the article avers, “there wasn’t enough oxygen within the storm to even keep a lamp going.” Again, this doesn’t square with science. Other than a minor dilution effect, choking dust doesn’t change the composition of air.

Egan’s book makes these and other sensational assertions. E.g.
1. “static was so strong it electrocuted a jackrabbit,” p. 172. This is hyperbolic and implausible.

2. “The static had singed the foliage of the watermelon plants.” p. 180.
3. “Gardens were burned and limp, electrocuted by static.” p. 198.
For 2. and 3., a necessary condition for these dust storms was drought. Yet the simple and obvious explanation of lack of water is not considered. Instead, this author has valence for the more hair-raising tale.

4. A dust storm “producing enough static electricity to power New York.” p. 221. Again, not possibly plausible.

Furthermore, newspaper accounts by Associated Press and United Press correspondents sent to the region for weeks to report on the dusters including Black Sunday fail to make any mention related to static electricity even though they experienced their full fury.

Egan’s book contains no citations for these suspect statements. The facts of the Dust Bowl are impressive enough without such embellishment. Unless corroborated by a reliable source, this book should not be cited. Yankeepapa13 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]