Talk:Worcester tornado

F4 or F5 rating

ChessEric, United States Man, TornadoLGS: An Internet Archived source from NOAA says the tornado is an F5 and the entire Aftermath section is unsourced and says "Official observations classified this tornado as F4, but damage was consistent with an F5 tornado in five of the affected towns (Rutland, Holden, Worcester, Shrewsbury and Westborough)." Some things don't seem to add up entirely since we have a source from 2003 officially saying it is an F5 tornado, and unsourced information (supposedly from 2005) saying F4 tornado that caused a debate between F4-F5 rating. Any thoughts on what to do about that? Elijahandskip (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: The page you link to is for the Flint–-Beecher tornado, not the Worcester tornado. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Well sure enough I do. Now I look dumb... Well, just ignore this entire message because I mixed up tornadoes. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

lol ChessEric (talk · contribs) 14:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to edit the text above the image of the air pressure map to show it's previous rating as well as it's current rating, but the box disappeared for some reason after I made the edit. Lizardman1222 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Lizardman1222: You would need to provide a source indicating that this earned an F5 rating at one point. In any case, the infobox for a tornado usually does not mention if a rating was changed. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

The first year that tornado warnings were issued.

The article states the following....1953 was the first year that tornado and severe thunderstorm warnings were used, so forecasters compromised and issued the first severe thunderstorm watch in the history of Massachusetts. The article does not give a primary source for that claim. I would like to point out this memo that came directly from the head of the Weather Bureau in 1950 which refutes the claim about 1953. https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/memo1950.pdf. Jsc01835 (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's tragic that they decided to issue a severe thunderstorm watch instead of a tornado watch/warning. So many lives could have been saved if they weren't so worried about making people panic. They would have been better off panicking and alive instead of relaxed/unaware, followed by seriously injured or dead. Dym75 (talk) 23:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Al Flahive of the Boston Weather bureau had a daily 5 minute radio program on WHDH radio at the time. He should have used the program that day to let the people know that tornadoes like the ones that ocurred the day before in MI could not be ruled out. People should be on guard and if the storm seems rough or worse than what they are used to, it may very well be a tornado and it's time to take cover. As far as panicking goes. That is complete baloney. Remember WW2 ended 8 years prior with the use of two fission bombs. We were exploding fission, fusion, fission, aka hydrogen bombs in Nevada and the Pacific, we had the cold war, and the Korean war was coming to a close. The majority of people up this way do have basements. The idea that anyone would panic due to a warning is utterly absurd. Besides, if people did decide to stay down cellar for the afternoon and until after any storms went through, so what? How is that going to hurt anyone? It's worth noting that there were two significant tornadoes in MA that afternoon as well as a significant tornado in Exeter NH. There were several non significant tornadoes in the areas of Fremont NH and Rollinsford NH and into S. Berwick ME. Probably others that were not reported. Significant implies F3 or higher. If you look at my other post, you'll see that I provided a link to a document put out by the head of the weather bureau in DC at the time. Mr. Reichelderfer, the document was dated mid 1950 and told the individual forecast offices that they are expected to issue tornado warnings when they are warranted. If you look into a study done on the Worcester tornado and available online you'll find that the power and telephone companies were warned but not the general public. If you look at the article on this tornado written in the New Yorker magazine a year or so later you'll see that the people at the Boston weather bureau freely admit that they knew about the tornado potential and decided not to warn the public. In my opinion they should have faced criminal charges for withholding the information. It's also interesting to note that if you look at the MIT radar, you'll see the hook echo of the tornado before it hit Worcester. A little more research and you will find that the hook echo was known before the Worcester tornado to indicate rain being wrapped around a mesocyclone and is a good indicator of a tornado. I'm sure that the MIT people knew. They were in contact with the Boston Weather Bureau. They really had a chance to shine that day, to be heroes, yet because of their cowardice they blew it. All they do was tell the people that there was a chance of tornadoes. By keeping that a secret, people just thought it was a bad thunderstorm and 94 of them were killed because the Boston Weather Bureau refused to do it's job and tell them that what they experience may be far beyond a strong summer thunderstorm. They were afraid to do their job. Again, they didn't have to say when and where the tornado or tornadoes would be, just tell the people that the storms coming through that afternoon may produce tornadoes. That's all. With that information people could have chosen to take cover ahead of time or even during the storm if it seemed necessary. 68.163.109.97 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

F4 vs F5 panel

After some searching, I still can not find a source for the panel that reexamined the damage to see whether the tornado should have received an F5 rating. Has anyone been able to find it? NomzEditingWikis (talk) 06:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 5 August 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (non-admin closure) ~~ Jessintime (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

---

1953 Worcester tornado → Worcester tornado – It's rare for the northeastern states to receive violent tornado, Mass. has received 4, and this tornado is by far the most infamous and destructive one. There are not that many sources that call it the 1953 Worcester tornado. Here are the sources that call it the Worcester tornado. Worcester tornado, Worcester tornado, Worcester tornado , Worcester, MA F4 tornado, Worcester, Massachusetts tornado, Worcester tornadoWorcester tornado. Here's one article that call it the Great Worcester tornado. Great Worcester tornado, Hoguert (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Ivey (talk - contribs) 12:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Oppose : Many sources do call it the 1953 Worcester Tornado. I am in general against removing the years from the Wikipedia titles of infamous tornadoes as even if its the most well known tornado to ever hit the area Quincy Gordon (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Support - Consensus disagrees that removing the year is a big issue. Zero need for the year. ^EF⁵ 13:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

If i could edit the comment I would change it to say Strongly oppose Quincy Gordon (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Quincy Gordon, would you like me to strike out your previous vote, or...? — ^EF⁵ 17:47, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

No but thank you tho! Quincy Gordon (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support – Specifically per a unique case of WP:COMMONTERM (same policy as WP:COMMONNAME, but I am using that shortcut specifically in this case). I did some extensive searching, and I can confirm RS is mixed (near 50/50 even) on whether it is just "Worcester tornado" or if "1953" is included in its 'named' articles / references. However, the term "Worcester tornado" is most commonly associated with this tornado. In fact, Google search of "Worcester" "tornado" had 5 pages of straight news articles/references to the 1953 tornado, with the first non-1953 tornado reference being on page 6 for an F1 tornado in 1958. NWS cites 1953, while academics exclude 1953. However, the exact common term for this tornado is "Worcester tornado", meaning an article by only those two words, without 1953, would be commonly associated to 1953 automatically. So not the exact "common name" for this tornado, but a clear "common term". The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Encouraging more participation Ivey (talk - contribs) 12:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support move. There's only one singular "Worcester tornado". O.N.R. ^(talk) 15:00, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.