The article uses a death toll of 50 in the infobox and "at least 50" in the text. The cited source says that death toll did not exceed 50, which is a bit different. Looking into this a but further I found this source, "Caribbean Tsunamis A 500-Year History from 1498-1998" O'Laughlin & Lander (2003), which states:
"At least 23 people perished at St. Thomas and St. Croix. The actual death toll from the tsunami may have been much higher. The Sanct Thome Tidende reported, "Loss of life does not exceed 50."
"Maskell recounted from passengers who had previously gone ashore from the steamer, La Plata, and had not been aboard ship during the tsunami: "From them we learned that the loss of life was probably great, as numbers of the island's inhabitants, after the first great earth shock, had put off in boats to escape they knew not whither. The tidal wave destroyed most of these frail craft, and the great majority of their occupants must have drowned. Also vessels in the harbor had been driven ashore with the loss of many seamen"".
I've not been able to find any other sources giving alternative estimates, so I think that we should probably use this information, but I'm not quite sure how to word it. Mikenorton (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- Having said that I just found this abstract] which says "Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were inundated by tsunamis in 1867 (mainly affecting St. Thomas and St. Croix, 7 m of runup, casualties in the hundreds)". Mikenorton (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
- The lead paragraph cites Paul Russell's thesis claim that the events "resulted in over 50 fatalities", which cites O’loughlin and Lander's 2003 book. I the confusion is likely because of Russell's phrasing in the thesis, and since there was no access to the cited source, took "at least 50" into the page. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore the morgue) 00:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)Reply
