Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:1938 New England hurricane

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

Terminology

[edit]

Note that this event is never to my knowledge called the "Long Island Express" outside of New York. In Rhode Island and Connecticut, it is always the "1938 Hurricane" or "Hurricane of '38" or some such terminology. "Great Hurricane" seems to be a term used only in newspapers and encyclopedia articles. Zigamorph 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC).

Well, I had never heard of this terminology other than that this hurricane has always been "The Great New England Hurricane." I was 7 years old when it hit the New York State area where I lived. I watched through the back window of our house as the rain belted down and the trees blew. What worried me was that the apples on our 3 apple trees might blow away in the wind. (They hung on there OK) So today, living here in Texas, we came through hurricane RITA just fine and hope that that rascally storm does not come back on south again into the Gulf of Mexico to bite at us once more. It is said that this might happen. 69.44.61.48 23:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For consistency with other Wikipedia names it should just be the 1938 New England Hurricane (or maybe New England Hurricane of 1938; this should be discussed with other hurricane people). The other names should of course also be mentioned in the article - which I have now done. However the article should probably be moved to match the name. Jdorje 22:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There didn't appear to be any disputes about the moving of this page, so I just went ahead and moved it. —Cleared as filed. 22:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Todo

[edit]

Decent content for a storm this old. Still, more impact is needed, particularly more specific data about places that were damaged. Also a better intro, fix some wording, etc. Jdorje 04:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much is unsourced, and that aftermath is lacking, I've downgraded it to C-class. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5 vs. 3

[edit]

To my knowledge no recorded Hurricane 5 has ever ever hit the northeast U.S. (although inevitable). This storm was a 3 but was devastating because it hit at high tide. --Americasroof 05:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a category 5 over water, and the infobox denotes its maximum intensity. This may be the source of your confusion. -Runningonbrains 00:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

$306 million 1938 USD = ?? 2005 USD

[edit]

Where does that 6 billion 2004 dollar figure come from? Because this site disagrees. And is there a way to get 2005, assuming the link here is incorrect?

Straight from NHC. NHC says $5.971 billion, which was rounded to 6. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Providence flooded

[edit]

The fact that downtown Providence was flooded by water surging up the Providence River is an important fact that should be included.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Text / Map discrepancy

[edit]

The text says that the hurricane made landfall as a category 3, but the map says it was only a tropical storm (ie, triangles rather than circles). Which is right? -- Ch'marr (talk) 20:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trianges simply mean the storm was extratropical. The colors still apply, regardless of shape. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Forecasters blew it

[edit]

This neglects that the US Weather Bureau blew the forecast, saying it was way off the coast, EXCEPT one young USWB forecaster correctly predicted the storm's path but his superiors ignored him. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine this article still lacks quite a bit of information, but that seems a particularly interesting fact. Are there any online sources I could use to back that up? –Juliancolton | Talk 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked but a TV documentary on History Channel made a big deal of it. It was broadcast this am. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I saw that this morning as well. I've also seen it in the past.Mitch32(Want help? See here!) 01:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Found it [http://books.google.com/books?

The PBS program American Experience is doing a show on the 1938 hurricane. It should be broadcast sometime during the week of May 17, 2010 and their web site has a lot of background information. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/hurricane/Talltomp (talk) 06:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC) id=CzMfTLESpcUC&pg=PA26&dq=1938+hurricane+young+forecaster&ei=loGYSrj7B4ayzgSo3PDRDg#v=onepage&q=1938%20hurricane%20young%20forecaster&f=false here]. I'll work on adding this to the article. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible statement

[edit]

I find the following statement from the page to be non-credible: "The impact of the storm was strong enough to be recorded on seismographs in California and Alaska." Seismographs do not record meteorological phenomenae.

74.60.209.109 (talk) 02:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)Guest User[reply]

I do know that the storm was credibly identified on seismographs in nearby NYC, due to its pounding 50-foot waves... those crash hard on the shore. Whether it really registered thousands and thousands of miles away I don't know. Juliancolton (talk) 09:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1938 New England hurricane. 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}}).

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) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

False claim?

[edit]

The statement "It was only the third hurricane to strike New England since 1635", although sourced, is almost certainly inaccurate. Numerous other hurricanes made landfall during this time period. Hurricane Three of 1858, Hurricane Six of 1869, 1869 Saxby Gale, Hurricane Two of 1879, Hurricane Six of 1888, Hurricane Four of 1893, Hurricane Five of 1894, and Hurricane Two of 1896, to name a few. --Undescribed (talk) 13:40, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Undescribed: I think the sentence originally had "major hurricane" in it, which would make more sense. Not entirely sure though. If it's just hurricanes in general, then it's definitely wrong. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 13:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cyclonebiskit: So should "major hurricane" be placed in the sentence then? Or removed entirely? I cannot open the given source for the sentence. --Undescribed (talk) 14:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Undescribed: given that we can't access the source to verify either way, it should be removed entirely. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:57, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I totally missed this discussion and added the one below. Even if the source stated that it was the third storm it would be wrong given that there would be no references to support that claim. As others have pointed out, there have been numerous landfalling hurricane's in New England since 1635. Dbroer (talk) 15:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Storm count since 1635

[edit]

The lead paragraph states "It was only the third hurricane to strike New England since 1635." There is a reference to back up that claim but I am unable to access it so I don't know how it defines that declaration. It all seems to hinge on the term "strike" but no matter how one does that, it appears that the statement is false. In looking at NOAA's Hurricane Database, it looks like it was the 10th landfalling hurricane since 1858 (their records start in 1842) so by that definition it is false but there are literally dozens more that have affected (or struck) New England since then which would make the "third" claim false even if it is referenced. I would think that NOAA as a source is better than an author of an article in a magazine but like I said, I can't read that source.

If no one has an issue with that, I will delete that claim or at least clarify it. Dbroer (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOAA information on the New England Hurricane

[edit]

Recently, I came across this link on weather.gov. Can information from it be used as "official" if it is not covered by the HURDAT? https://www.weather.gov/okx/1938HurricaneHome --JavaHurricane (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User conducting edit war, using copyrighted material

[edit]

{{cv-unsure|[[User:Dilidor|Dilidor]] ([[User talk:Dilidor|talk]])|2=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1938_New_England_hurricane&oldid=926951985}}

63.148.212.198 (talk · contribs) appears to be a sock-puppet of 71.208.146.159 (talk · contribs), as both have been conducting a long-standing revert war to copy and paste what appears to be copyright protected material into the Rhode Island section of the article. The alleged citation is unverifiable, as it contains spelling errors. This badly written and incorrectly cited material is reinserted absolutely verbatim in every iteration of the revert war, which has occurred more than a dozen times over the past month. —Dilidor (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that and was wondering what was going on. You could request a protection on the page whereby only registered users are allowed to edit. I've seen that that usually drives off the riffraff. Or you just keep reverting - which I've also done. Either works - up to you. Ckruschke (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Ckruschke[reply]
Agree, request a temporary page protection as well as the above request for copyright revdel.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 21:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Thanks for suggesting and pointing me in the right direction. Let's hope this resolves the problem. —Dilidor (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DOH! I just noticed that this had already been accomplished, apparently in response to my sock-puppet report. Thanks again for the suggestions. —Dilidor (talk) 16:34, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1938_New_England_hurricane&oldid=1216179862"