Jump to content

Talk:2011 New England tornado outbreak

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More Info

[edit]

More info about this is available at Dr. Jeff Masters' wunderground blog, suggest citing as it has good historical context. see http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/article.html?entrynum=1815 Enviropearson (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

Combine with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_New_England_tornado_outbreak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.224.167 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Combined. That one, which had far less, was redirected here. Although if strong tornadoes are found elsewhere, that name might be preferred. CrazyC83 (talk) 02:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holding pattern

[edit]

As mentioned on the previous article which was merged here, a lot of information will have to wait until the surveys come out. There is not a lot of details. It is also likely more tornadoes will be found. BTW, the tornadoes in California and the Plains are NOT part of the outbreak and do not belong in this article. CrazyC83 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when the storm reports come out, each tornado should have only 1 entry in the table. As of now, inddividual tornadoes have several entries for each time they were reported. Although there's not much point in editing this to fix it until the reports come out anyway. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless they were separate tornadoes. Also more will likely be surveyed. CrazyC83 (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were two storms that are known to have produced tornadoes during the event, both of which followed nearly the exact same path and produced tornadoes in the same areas (hence why the three cities are listed twice). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free images needed

[edit]

I mentioned it briefly at Talk:2011_New_England_tornado_outbreak, but it deserves repeating that this article needs free images. A targeted search on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tornado+-joplin&l=commderiv&d=taken-20110530-20110601&ct=0&mt=all&adv=1) turns up no really usable content at the time of this writing. If anyone reading this within the next week or so lives in any of the hard-hit areas, please consider taking some photos of the damage. Emw (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at the flickr feed right now. There are photos of the damage being uploaded every few minutes. Nothing free yet, but I'm sure we'll find one. YouTube also has a lot of good amateur video we can grab frames from, but I don't know about the licensing status. Viriditas (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't be to hard to email a couple people and get them to release there image under a CC or something similar, if all else fails. Personally I would rather have an image of the tornado then an image of the damage for the infobox but damage pictures work just as well. -Marcusmax(speak) 16:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Over 80 freely-licensed images of the damage have been uploaded to Flickr; see http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=tornado+massachusetts&z=m&l=commderiv&d=taken-20110530-20110610&mt=all&adv=1&page=1. I've uploaded a large portion of them at commons:Category:2011_New_England_tornado_outbreak.

Tornadoes in Maine

[edit]

Apparently there were some weak tornadoes in the backcountry of Maine, if they are surveyed and found to be tornadoes tomorrow then the name will no longer be acceptable. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll incorrect

[edit]

I don't have time to do the research right now, but the death toll as reported and repeated countless times last night, including by Govenor Patrick is incorrect. There were NO deaths reported in Westfield, which Westfield Mayor Knapik stated on broadcast media last night. As of last night (6/1/11) there were two reported deaths; the vehicle accident in West Springfield and one person killed in Brimfield. This morning, a new report: a mother was killed protecting her 15-year-old daughter in a bathtub in their home in West Springfield. So as of 1:00p on 6/2/11, the death toll stands at 3. http://www.ajc.com/news/nation-world/mass-digs-out-after-964855.html Mmpartee (talk) 17:40, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who lives in Massachusetts the governer just spoke and the death toll still stands at 4 they were as you said putting that last person in question but it still stands at 4. I would wait for more information to come out, everything is still in it's early phase. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was perplexed earlier when I turned on the news and they said that one might not be storm-related. It's a tad weird but I guess we'll wait for more information before we go on. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had two friends who narrowly escaped being added to the death toll, one was almost swept off her porch, the other was driving into Agawam when the first tornado hit the Memorial Bridge. LReyome254 (talk) 04:12, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some sources are saying that only three deaths were storm related, one was a heart-attack victim not injured by the tornado. I had heard this yesterday too, but now it seems it's been confirmed, although some agencies are still reporting 4 deaths.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 05:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWS Update

[edit]

The National weather service has issued an update 3 tornados were confirmed one EF3 and two EF1's [1] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes caused

[edit]

Is there precedent to indicate the number of tornadoes reported? From what I've seen on other articles, it should only be tornadoes confirmed (the reported number is inflated because the SPC counts reports, and longer tornadoes would receive multiple reports as the tornado moves along). Inks.LWC (talk) 02:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I guess we are going off of what eyewitnesses say. There has been massive damage in Sturbridge, Springfield, Monson, Southbridge, Westfield, and some in West Springfield and I don't know why someone removed the ones that weren't confirmed yet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tornadoes need serious updating.

[edit]

The list says 4 are confirmed, according to the NWS, that is not true. http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&format=CI&version=1&glossary=0&highlight=off&issuedby=BOX&product=PNS

The one that touched down in Westfield was an EF3 and made a path all the way to Charlton. The other two where EF1s, in Wilbraham and North Brimfield. THis is prelim data they say, but most reported where funnel clouds for exaple, at this page http://forecast.weather.gov/product.php?site=NWS&format=CI&version=1&glossary=0&highlight=off&issuedby=BOX&product=LSR Barnes Municipal Airport said they saw a Funnel cloud touchdown, as did I because I live right across the street from it. The EF3 was one half mile wide when it reached Brimfield and had max wind speeds of 160mph. The first link has all the observationist's info, and the third one is all the reports via spotters, amateur and ham radio operators/law enforcement/trained spotters. 76.127.226.118 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list only has three tornadoes for Massachusetts. I'm not sure where you see a fourth MA tornado. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 20:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the list on the site, this one, says there are 7, NWS says three, so Only those three confirmed should be listed. 76.127.226.118 (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The list is including the Maine tornadoes. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Accuracy of the information

[edit]

The accuracy of the information here needs to be checked. As a resident of Western Ma, I've been listening to the reports. The tornado touchdown in the Wilbraham area did much more damage than treetops. There are people without homes. Also Charleton was never mentioned as a touchdown location. Also the one listed as an EF3 is actually more than one tornado. The information that is cited in the posting above should be headed: * THE INFORMATION IN THIS STATEMENT IS PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING FINAL REVIEW OF THE EVENT(S) AND PUBLICATION IN NWS STORM DATA.* — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJD1965 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a major rewrite of the section on the EF3 tornado so maybe that'll help clear things up. The severe damage in Wilbraham was caused by the main tornado rather than the brief EF1 later in the day. In regards to the EF3 being two separate tornadoes, I did see something about that on Disaster News Network but it's not backed up by the National Weather Service and can't be added into the article. Lastly, I see what you're saying about adding a note for the information being preliminary but it's not needed really. Unless a statement is issued within the next week or so, the final information on these tornadoes will not be released until sometime in September or October when the National Climatic Data Center adds June into their severe weather database. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While we're topic, what was the second event in Sturbridge? There was a reporter from WCVB who was talking about seeing a funnel cloud and described it in detail and I see that it was erased here. I know the National Weather Service didn't say anything about it, but what have others said about this event? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It remained aloft based on the statement from the NWS not listing it as a tornado, thus it's not in the chart anymore. Once I get around to it, I'll be included within the meteorological synopsis. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths

[edit]

Where is the information that there were 3 deaths coming from? Both the SPC's preliminary storm report, and the local forecast office are indicating there were 4 deaths. Inks.LWC (talk) 06:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That assertion comes from the reference cited in the infobox for the number of fatalities, "Massachusetts digs out after three tornadoes kill 3, hurt 200": "Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick is clarifying this morning that three people died during the storm. Yesterday, they were saying four people, but apparently, the fourth person had a heart attack after the storms struck." Emw (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the SPC was saying that the heart attack was storm related though. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Heart attack deaths are never included in tornado death counts, and neither are deaths during cleanup or due to carbon monoxide poisoning from personal generators (a quite common problem); only deaths due to injuries sustained in the tornado itself are counted. The SPC list has since been updated to list only 3.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article direction

[edit]

The speed at which this article has expanded has frankly amazed me. After realizing that this is essentially a B-Class article, I wondered if it would be best to attempt expanding this to Good Article material. We would need to create sections for the other tornados which don't presently have any information on them but otherwise this article is pretty good and just needs tweaking to reach that stage. I figured it would be best to propose it now while activity here is rather high and interest also is in the same area, but I would like to see of what others think of this idea as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only tornadoes which cause considerable damage warrant their own sections outside the table. The other tornadoes have limited information and the content present in the table sufficiently covers them. In regards to the rating, thanks! :D I'm planning on finishing up the meteorological history in the near future and eventually the aftermath sometime next month (when time allows). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exaggerations

[edit]

I know this was a disaster to a populated area that doesn't experience tornadoes much, but please keep a level head when editing. From a cursory glance this article reads more like a newspaper article than an encyclopedia entry, complete with exaggerations, half-truths, and other misinformation just to make an already bad disaster seem worse than it actually was. I'm going to try to bring this article up to snuff, but it does not deserve a B-class rating yet, IMHO.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 18:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree - "The city of Springfield was devastated by the June 1, 2011 tornado," "Springfield's Sixteen Acres neighborhood, an upper-middle class neighborhood - Springfield's most suburban in character - was similarly devastated," " causing near-total deforestation [in Wilbraham]" -- the damage along the path of the tornado through Springfield and Wilbraham was extensive, but outside the path you would be hard pressed to know that there was a tornado - there are plenty of trees standing in Wilbraham north of Springfield St and near the Hamdpen border, there were no signs of the tornado in Springfield's Boston Rd neighbor, in Sixteen Acres north of Wilbraham Rd (where I live) in Pine Point, etc. The hyperbole helps no one. Anechoic Man (talk) 21:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still Unrated?

[edit]

I'm somewhat surprised that this article still lists the tornado that occurred southwest of Solon, Maine is still listed as unrated. Was this simply because someone forgot to update the page or is there another reason? I've also noted that this tornado is not mentioned in the List of United States tornadoes in June 2011. TornadoLGS (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPC didn't list it (and neither did the local National Weather Service office), but the media reported it as a separate tornado from the main one that occurred southwest of Solon. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know for sure until NCDC storm data is updated in a few months. The NWS does not always list all confirmed tornadoes publicly immediately, especially if they were minor. IMHO it will end up being a case of miscommunication between the NWS and the news agency, but we shall see. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 06:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name

[edit]

I thought you should know the NOAA official page has this officially called the "2011 Massachusetts Tornado Outbreak". Maybe the editors of this page should follow along with what the official name is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.88.10 (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this page is the one you are referring to. I doubt changing the page would be wise; while the main impact was in Massachusetts, there were two confirmed tornadoes in Maine. Note that this link is for the Boston (Taunton) Massachusetts NWS office; the other tornadoes would have been under another office's jurisdiction. In this case a descriptive title would be best, IMO. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 03:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings were not issued for the Springfield area until it had already progressed over city.

[edit]

Contrary to statements made by other agencies that claim warnings were issued one minute before the tornado touched down, I can tell you as a resident of the area where it first formed that this is inaccurate. I am from the Feeding Hills section of agawam, near the Munger Hill section where the tornado first touched down and am a trained Skywarn spotter. I had just came home from work on rt 75 as the funnel cloud and damaging winds entered the area (approx 1/2 mile from where the funnel cloud crossed on rt 75)and the telephone poles were swaying and wires whipping, trees downed and shortly after, the tornado lifted. at that point there were no warnings at all, and none were postested until it had reformed in West Springfield, crossing the river; and the first warning occured when it was in the sixteen acres area. We were totaly unprepared for this and did not have the proper tools in place to issue such warnings. So if there is anyone out there that says they were issued one minute before the actual event, they are providing incorrect information.

An eye witness

Based on official sources (which is represented within the article), the tornado touched down at 4:17 pm near Westfield, and a tornado warning was issued at 4:18 pm. The article does not state that a tornado warning was issued before the tornado; however, a severe thunderstorm warning was issued at 4:13 pm. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2011 New England tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on 2011 New England tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 New England tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 New England tornado outbreak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:30, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_New_England_tornado_outbreak&oldid=1196595576"