Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 2

Global warming article link?

I posted an external link to this article, Time Magazine: Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?, which was later removed by 24.165.233.150, with the comment, "global warming stuff doesn't belong in this article, try the article on hurricanes..." (here's the diff). I disagree, as the Time article specifically addresses this particular hurricane. I was under the impression that there was an interest in having such information included, per the earlier discussion above. I would like to avoid a dispute on this point, so I would like to know what the consensus of the community is as to whether this external link should be included. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing special about this hurricane related to global warming. Material about how overactive this season has been, or on what causes hurricanes in general really should go into the main hurricane article or into the article on the season... If someone is interested in the global warming angle, they'll also be interested in all the information we provide on why this season is more active than others. If there is something special about global warming and *this* storm that I'm missing, then it should be discussed in the text, not just tossed out as an external link. Gmaxwell 03:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:BD2412 and earlier comments that it should be here. This hurricane being a particularly devastating one and people are talking about the link in general, so no reason to not have it there. Saying it belongs on the main hurricane page is also true, but not an argument for it not being here. DreamGuy 05:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well I managed to mostly sway BD, checkout his talk page and mine. After looking into the matter more indepth I also object to the link because it appears to be random speculation by some journalist which is not tied back to any verifiable research. 24.165.233.150 06:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with User:BD2412, link the article. --Titoxd 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[removed long article that was copyright violation copied and pasted here without permission trying to start a fight about global warming... link to it if you want, don't steal it.] DreamGuy 22:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

People are calling it a "natural disaster". This can't be entirely true because:

• Warmth drives storms by evaporating water vapor, which is lighter than air.
• Global warming is melting the polar ice caps, which raises the ocean level, and therefore the lake and river levels.
• As Scientific American once reported, soot on the ice caps increases their melting rate.
• Flood control has prevented sediment that would have helped keep Louisiana above water.
• Nutria, introduced by people, are eating away the marsh grass.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by David R. Ingham (talk • contribs) 12:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Harrison MS deaths

WDSU has just reported that the Harrison County, MS EOC has just reported 50 storm-related deaths.
--Baylink 03:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While I can believe that number, we should wait for more confirmation - they heavily overestimated with Charley ("dozens" reported dead in Punta Gorda, in reality less than 10 died there). CrazyC83 03:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Nevermind, it is now widely reported. For now, they should be listed as direct deaths unless an indirect cause is mentioned (i.e. building fire). CrazyC83 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Fatality charts

Is there a better way to illustrate the chart of fatalities by state? An "inland" death chart listing (as of now) the single death in Georgia, and separated from the totals of Miss., La., Ala., and Fla. Seems to me these charts should be merged, but it wouldn't be appropriate under only coastal or inland headings. Thoughts? --Twigboy 03:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The inland chart will likely grow as deaths from Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New York and Ontario, among other states/provinces are eventually added... after all, Katrina has only just started affecting the inland areas. The listings will eventually grow. CrazyC83 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I understand, but my point is that the distinction between coastal/inland fatalities seems to be arbitrary. For example, Hinds County, MS appears to be more than 100 miles inland, yet it's listed as "coastal." Is it coastal just because it's in a state that has a Gulf coast? --Twigboy 03:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Coastal states here are MS, AL, LA and FL - the states directly affected from the coastal impact. It is easiest to keep the states together (so, even if it happens in, say, Huntsville AL, it will go in the coastal list under Alabama). Inland states(/provinces) are everything else. CrazyC83 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

There should be a table that present the total tally, coastal and inland. How about a new section call "Summary on casualities", just before the two sections? --Vsion 04:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Cnn reported from AP 55 people dead. Thats a good enough source to put that number in the artilce. Also we should metion it has now become one of the legendary hurricanes. Such as besty, camille, hugo, Andrew.

I just combined the sections and renamed it "Impact by region". It will also show a combined death toll. CrazyC83 04:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Andrew

• Anyone else notice a striking similarity in the path of Andrew to Katrina's? I thought Katrina was following a strange path until I saw Andrew. Through lower Florida, across the Gulf, through Louisiana, and back up towards the Northeast. Staxringold 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The tracks are somewhat similar, but Katrina's strongest landfall was its second instead of its first.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what I have noticed also. I think Camille did the same track. 207.30.145.6 11:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

A range of IPs has been inserting random characters in words all over the article. Someone, please report this "Sandbox vandal" to WP:VIP, since it's almost impossible to do it myself, trying to keep up with the vandal.

Kind regards, Titoxd 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I tossed a variety of IP addresses over there. Hopefully they aren't AOL ones, because if they are, blocking won't help.DreamGuy 05:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it sure has been a lot quieter now. Thank you very much! --Titoxd 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

relevant link?

I reverted an edit adding this link: [1]. I don't object to having it in the article, but I'm unsure if it should be there. What do you people think? --Titoxd 05:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

No. Not relevant enough. Would be fine in an article on "New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" if that one is ever written, but not here. Shanes 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

shrug, I added it I thought it was quite relevant. This is why:

New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces funding cuts in 2006

From the article: "The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." This article addresses the future preparedness of the New Orleans to Hurricanes like Katrina. It could be added to future predictions, or a section to reaction to the disaster.

Levee break

CNN is reporting there is a two block wide breach in the 17th St Canal levee. Lake Pontchartrain is pouring into Orleans Parish. Water around Tulane University Hospital is rising one inch every minute. Won't put in article until corroborated online. --Golbez 06:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

CNN has just reported it again, statement from the Army Corps of Engineers on the breach is expected within the next two hours. Also reported here (second article down): [2]-Loren 07:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Per CNN 0302 CDT: Hospital evacuations temporarily placed on hold. Army Corps of Engineers currently in meeting discussing levee breach. -Loren 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

200 ft break confirmed by NOFD officials. -Loren 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

moved section on "Previous Prediction"

I moved the section on "Previous Prediction" to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. I feel this is the most suitable section to be transfered. Ok? --Vsion 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Be safe. We are praying for you.

Widespread looting?

The article says "Since Lousiana and Mississippi is an economically depressed area, widespread looting has been reported in hurricane stricken areas." I don't know if I should take this out as I haven't heard of widespread looting, only incidents, and I haven't heard of Louisiana and Missisppi being 'economically depressed.' I don't know, I may be wrong here, hence the posting. 129.110.199.227 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the level of economic depression in Louisiana, but I dropped the "since" word, as I believe looting can occur everywhere, given the "right" circumstances. But, yeah, maybe we should just drop the whole statement about economic depressed area. Especially if it's not even true.... Shanes 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take out the economically depressed bit, and the widespread bit, and just put 'incidents of looting.' At the very worst, it means the same thing anyway, just more general. Dafrito 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I think I beat you too it ;-). Shanes 07:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

*cries.* Dafrito 08:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought looters were shot on sight in the US. So looting is very unlikely. As for economically depressed, the average person gets $27000 per year in Louisiana. Easy to live on that for a family of, say 6 (6x$27000)! Leistung 10:07, 30 August 2005 (EST)

I don't think you and I are talking about the same US. Perhaps the United States of Mexico, but not the United States of America. Also, average income is the mean, not the median. Where income inequality is significant, like Louisiana (and the USA in general), the mean will be far higher than the median. A more typical family earns $27000 per year total. 24.34.190.187 10:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Folks, Mexican Wikipedians read this article too... --Titoxd 17:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Looters may be summarily shot by the police, army, or property owners. Extraordinary measures, combined with an impressive show of force, help to discourage looting and to disperse crowds that would now find a normal show of force non-threatening." Wikipedia quote from Looting

Leistung 19:40, 30 August 2005 (CET)

Key word in all that is "may". Normally, at least with police/national guard forces, that does not begin happening until things reach near riot levels in most areas. Individual property owners might shoot on sight, but in this case, most are not around their property and any potential looters would shy away from an obvious armed pressence for 'safer' targets. One more thing, despite the view of our nation presented by Hollywood, most Americans do not reach for a gun first. While there may be shootings reported, it will not be widespread unless things get much much worse. Donovan Ravenhull 19:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think, as the section says, "widespread looting" is very serious, and these could be "summarily shot by the police, army, or property owners." I also understand that nearly all Americans have their automatic gun, as it is part of the Constitution.

Leistung 08:07, 31 August 2005 (CET)

The 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to form militias. Please, stop with the trollish anti-American comments. If I recall correctly, you were the one who said that this is just another example of Americans "crying wolf". --Titoxd 06:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Tito, your threats are noted. I am not a troll. My opinions are just diametrically opposed to yours personally. I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. As for being anti-American, I have many American friends. I often stick up for America. Doesn't mean to say I have to crawl on my belly before you, as I am so frightened that you will call me names.

Leistung 09:56, 31 August 2005 (CET)

There were no threats to note, and no one is asking you to crawl on your belly, but you are way out of line on your comments. Those were undeniably trollish statements. This talk page is not some place for people to argue about alleged faults of Americans, it's about making an encyclopedia article. Please take these comments to a site that they would be more appropriate on. DreamGuy 08:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Again, if someone says something you disagree with this is considered by you "trollish". Note that I did not initiate bringing America into the conversation in this Section. I referred to looters in general. It seems that some Americans are over sensitive. The are plenty of anti European remarks around, and this seems OK. It is by me anyway. As for the encyclopedia article, this is a discussion page, not the article itself. I thought that was where we were supposed to discuss things. leistung 12:36, August 31, 2005 (CET)

• Without regard to how one would characterize these comments, they are clearly made from ignorance and prejudice and need not be discussed here. Factual and verifiable information is our concern. Published eyewitness accounts of looting are, for example, more pertinent than estimates of the likelihood of looting based on sloppy analysis of erroneous data. Dystopos 17:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Katrina in S. Illinois and the Purchase?

This section is still on the page: "Katrina may come close to the Ohio River Valley, even scraping southern Illinois, causing storms to rise from the remnants that are left behind." The forecast track doesn't have it coming anywhere near there, instead crossing the Kentucky line around Hopkinsville and heading into Indiana or Ohio. It hasn't been forecast to go through the Purchase or Illinois to my knowledge (if it does, good, we need the rain) - flood watches don't even cover any county north or west of Graves.

Also, is it true that TVA is opening spillways? I heard (as of Sunday) the rivers were low enough to impede barge traffic. 24.34.190.187 10:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the storm is not a single point or line following a projected track. Check out this current radar, Southern Illinois, as well as Indiana and Ohio are feeling the effects of Katrina. --Holderca1 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I checked local weather (I'm from the Purchase but living out of state) and saw the rainfall totals. Not much except around Fort Massac, but they recorded bits of rain associated with the storm even in Missouri. We didn't get much at all; now I'm more worried about river flooding and the effects on the economy. 24.34.190.187 03:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro inconsistency

From the intro, last para:

.... and 80% of New Orleans is said to be under water. Currently 750,000 people are without power in the New Orleans area, and it may be several weeks before power is restored. The parts of the city with the worst flooding were in the east, where the storm was most severe. Roughly 40% of the city is under water...

I'm thinking it's one or the other, personally... J.K. 10:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I removed the 40% and put the 25 foot deep with the eighty percent. That's coming from an interview with the New Orleans mayor, though, for full disclosure, he said "The city of New Orleans is in a state of devastation. We probably have 80 percent of our city underwater. With some sections of our city, the water is as deep as 20 feet." So I guess we should just quote that directly, since he said probably, too. Dafrito 11:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea of the quote, but can you find a cite? J.K. 11:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN cites it here, I believe. [3] Fifth paragraph or so. Dafrito 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Reuters cites the quote here, too, [4] Dafrito 11:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, here's the video of the interview. [5] Dafrito 11:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

New Orleans damage report

Should we summarize all that into one paragraph or a series of paragraphs, or is it our intention to keep the reports mostly chronological? Dafrito 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that it makes sense to refactor all of the information into a series of paragraphs, but I think that would be hard to do at this time. I would find it hard to know what to keep, especially with all of the rapid changes that are occurring. It's probably a better idea to wait until the flow of information slows down before massaging it into a more encyclopedic form. That being said, be bold. --timc | Talk 14:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Higher death tolls

AP reports up to 80 deaths in harrison county alone. So I changed the number to 54-80 people killed in the deaths chart. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina_3;_ylt=An2t.4FWAg4ftOwvj9yMQYsbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Leave it for now.

I just updated all the lists to show that (64-90 direct deaths total). If anything says "up to", it is definitely best to show it the way you did, as a range. CrazyC83 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The AP report said that it is the MS governor who gave this figure 50-80. I've updated the Mississippi section on this. When changing the fatalities chart, please update the relevant region section also, so that other can verify what's the source and time-stamp, and know how to update it when things changes. thks. --Vsion 21:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard the most recent reoprts say that they fear they have under estimated the death toll and that there may be up to a thousand dead. Mac Domhnaill 18:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

This source [6] has that also. --Vsion 18:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lousiana closed to incoming traffic

WDSU TV has reported that Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco has ordered the police to block all incoming roadways into Lousiana. Zzxcnet 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean into Louisiana from Southern Mississippi? I doubt they'd be blocking roadways across the entire state (from Texas into Shreveport, for example). Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"O’Brien-Molina, the Red Cross spokeswoman, said state officials shut off interstate highways re-entering Louisiana to keep people from returning to flooded areas. I-10 is completely closed down,” she said. “No one can go back in..." Times-Picayune online Rmhermen 05:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking News (by source)

Place unsorted developments here seen/heard on local news streams, local radio and other sources.

Clarion-Ledger

Beauvoir (Biloxi, Mississippi), final retirement home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major Biloxi historic attraction, was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The site also contains the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. No word on damage to the library or other historic buildings on the site.

WDSU

National guard refugees are bringing more people into the Superdome.

Looting is out of control. Grocery, retail stores being looted in flooded areas.

At least 200 people rescued from boats, rooftops.

People remaining in city that can get out are urged by the mayor to leave via the Crescent City Connection, the only remaining outbound route.

-- Zzxcnet 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Patients are being evacuated via helicopter at Tulane Medical Center.

The Superdome is surrounded by two feet of water.

-- Zzxcnet 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Highway 90 has been "destroyed", and is "no longer a highway" - in the words of a WDSU anchor.

The Hardrock Casino has "50% damage".

The fire chief in Gulfport estimates that 75% of the buildings have major roof damage.

-- Zzxcnet 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

You mean Highway 90? Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

yes. I fixed it. Zzxcnet 21:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

"Gov. Kathleen Blanco said Tuesday afternoon that people now huddled in the Superdome and other rescue centers need to be evacuated." [7] (and see CNN summary below). --timc | Talk 21:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN

Also CNN has shown video of the alabama coastline where small to big yatchs and even small container ships have washed ashore and some very far inland.

CNN reports: "Rising waters force evacuation of tens of thousands who sought refuge in New Orleans rescue centers, state governor says. More soon." --timc | Talk 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

WWL-TV

Congress is working on passing an emergency spending bill for rebuilding and recovery efforts in the affected areas.

Officials may attempt to use boxcars filled with dirt/sand to block the flooding on the 17th street canal.. as they are afraid the sandbags would be washed away. Zzxcnet 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Worst hurricane since Camille?

There have been reports that this strm may have killed hundrends and it is quite possibile due to the fact many people were in there homes during the 25-30 foot storm surge. This article explains. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050830/ts_nm/weather_katrina_deaths_dc_1;_ylt=AtZFfubsrlut5mf181oj4eUbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I think it's getting to the point of calling this the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, considering the new reports rolling in. The optimism from yesterday has quickly vanished. --tomf688^<TALK> 19:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people and destroyed the city's long-term prospects; Houston is famous today because of Galveston's loss. I put a link to this near the bottom of the article on Katrina, but a chap called Golbez took it out, perhaps thinking it was inappropriate. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to start a petty war with someone who could block me. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

In terms of death toll, Galveston's storm is almost certain to stand as the deadliest in U.S. History. Defining "worst" is somewhat subjective, although I do understand your POV. While Katrina couldn't hope to match the Galveston Hurricane's death toll, that's pretty much a given, considering we can now see a storm coming and tell people to evacuate the area. We can't begin to calculate the potential devestation New Orleans has endured because of Katrina. We may be witnessing the destruction of a major city, similar to Galveston's destruction, seeing as to how the city will be underwater for a good month at least. It's far too early to tell one way or another, but considering we're only discussing New Orleans in this small conversation, not even considering the impact to Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, and to the economy, I'd say Katrina certainly has the potential - given perspective - to be the most devestating natural disaster in U.S. History. - jcomp489

And I'm not going to dignify such martyrdom with a response. Too bad, too, we could have come to an agreement. --Golbez 22:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There is too much of this going on. Self styled policemen deleting whatever they don't like. The article about the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is highly releveant, as it shows the effects of a truly major event in compasion, and brings Katrina into perspective.

Leistung 09:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I actually agree to an extent, in that at an article addressing past powerful Hurricanes that have struck the U.S. could be relevant for perspective. I think this is something that should be done down the line, however, and could actually make a strong case for showing how devestating Katrina already is. Take this excerpt from the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 article-

"By September 12, the first post-storm mail was received at Galveston. The next day, basic water service was restored, and Western Union began providing minimal telegraph service. Within three weeks, cotton was again being shipped out of the port."

Conversely, New Orleans isn't going to be having any basic services for water, food, sewage, postage, etc. for four weeks, much less within four or five days. jcomp489

French Quarter

Does anyone know what kind of damage has the French Quarter sustained? It seems to be missing from the article. --129.219.6.86 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Titoxd, who is too lazy to sign in). Validating my edit. --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It is being reported that it has started to flood, even though it was dry last night. Zzxcnet 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed; WDSU(/WAPT) showed tape last night from a corner approximately 3 blocks from their studios with dry streets.
--71.100.10.116 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone have a page to which we can refer to add that information to the article? --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I have video archives of WDSU and WWL-TV that I've saved from the live streams since before the storm hit. I can get segments of this to use as source material if neccessary. Zzxcnet 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina category

Would a Category be useful here? Not sure if such would be useful long term, but in the short term I would think it would be very useful to have a single way to link articles for the variuos effected areas, and other related articles. But I wanted to gage opinion before I just went and created just a thing. TexasAndroid 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Nah. There's no need for a category, all the places that were affected can (or should!) be reached from the article. --Titoxd 21:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Except you have to wade through the article to find them. A category would be much more convinient way to navigate from one place to another. Also, if you're on, say, the New Orleans page, all the places are not so easily reached. TexasAndroid 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I don't oppose it either, I just think it's unnecessary. But it has now been created. --Titoxd 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
      • For an idea on what articles could be in this category, see Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake --Vsion 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC).

Separate page for New Orleans?

There is now a need for a separate article on Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans as the section is expanding fast; leave a summary on this page instead. I need to rush to another place, can someone help to do it? thks. --Vsion 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a seperate article would be needed for this, however I lack the experience to do this myself, on a page as important as this one. The fate of the city lies in fixing the breeched levees, and efforts to fix it are underway now. I suppose quite a lot of information about this will come in in the next few hours/night, and the situation at the superdome also will generate text. Also it will relieve the main page from the specific New Orleans situation. bsod 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ultimately I think we will need lots of separate pages. Some of them include:

• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana (the rest of the state)
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Alabama
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Florida
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on other areas (if damage gets too severe in other states or we have a lot of information, a separate page would work, even if we have like 15 articles)
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the economy (for the "other impacts") CrazyC83 23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On Florida? I don't know about that; it's not big enough for that. There will need to be a template to handle all of this. Either way, I took care of the New Orleans article joturner 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I think this isn't necessarily a good idea. This kind of content will eventually reappear at this page, because of the prominence of the story and editors' desire to add new information. I'd like if the content were returned. --Titoxd 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, from the experience of Indian Ocean Tsunami, and 7 July London Bombing; this will work out. It's the level of details. The summary and the most important information will remain here, in fact, this paragraph will be similar to the lead section in the New Orleans page. Other local details will be on the New Orleans page itself. --Vsion 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I see that it is working out. Keep up the good work! --Titoxd 00:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Parts of this talk page relating to New Orleans should probably be moved to the New Orleans effects page as well, to minimize bloat here. This would allow for more relavant information on the talk pages. Zzxcnet 01:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Too Many Images

As of me writing this, there are nine images in the Preparations and Storm History sections alone. That is obviously too many? Which should we get rid of? Edit: I think the one under transportation and military should be first to go. The one with the track is unnecessary since the wind swath image implies the track already. joturner 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Standards

Currently, it makes a lot of sense to edit this page with short or even single-sentence, "journalism"-style paragraphs, which indeed many people are doing. Once most of the initial reportage and shock gives way, however, this article will need to be redone from an encyclopedic standpoint. It will be a large task, which perhaps will require some coordination by admins or others. --Jacqui M Schedler 23:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Writing guidelines

Some suggestions:

• Use the inverted pyramid style: Put the most important information up top. This applies to articles, sections and sub-sections
• For each section, the first paragraph should summarize the current status, especially on the casualties figure and dangerous floods condition.
• For each region, put information on casualties first, followed by floods condition, then on specific structural damages.
• For casualties, put information on confirmed deaths first, before the speculated/projected deaths. Please provide sources on all information.
• If a section gets too large, it's time to create a new article for it. Leave the lead/summary paragraph on this page.

Feel free to append/modify the above inline --Vsion 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Landfall question

Does crossing one of the Great Lakes and hitting land on the other side count as a landfall? CrazyC83 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• I doubt it. I think landfall only deals with oceans; the lakes are inland waters and wouldn't have effects on the storm different from that of land. 129.64.3.82 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• And see also point 11 in the third talk archive, which has a similar discussion, which was also unresolved. [8] -Ashley Pomeroy 05:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Public Health

Little has been said yet of what will be one of the greatest public health emergencies in decades. No clean water, no working sewers, no electricity, no telephones, no cell phone services, closed-down hospitals, filthy dirty septic/toxic floodwater contaminating everything everywhere, etc. I am speaking of old horrors like typhoid, cholera, and other diarrheal diseases, not to mention skin infections, untreated injuries, etc. It's a horror story in the making. Perhaps another article: Public Health Effects of Hurricane Katrina.

I just heard Tulane University Hospital lost its backup generator. They are in the dark. There are still lots of sick people there. This is a genuine public health catastrophe. --FourthAve 01:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposals for cleaning up the Article

thought i'd go out on a limb here and make a pitch, this article has a LOT of info, so much so that it really takes away from the article itself. I'm putting forth that one page be devoted to the actual meteorological history of Katrina, including records and such, with a round up of all the damages and effects. The second page, of which the effects on New Orleans was a good precursor - could be named Hurricane Katirna Aftermath. Just a thought... any other ideas, suggestions? Boort 00:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I created an article to summarize the reports of damage to public facilities and infrastructure. There is still so much that isn't reported yet. --Twigboy 03:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Prison riot

CNN and WWL are reporting that inmates at Orleans Parish Prison are rioting and have taken hostages, including the wife and children of a deputy, who took them there for safety.--YoungFreud 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Confirmed by ABC News, see [9]. A news conference will be held at 9PM EST (right about now), according to ABC News. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't see this press conference anywhere... did anyone see it? (and hopefully someone has a recording/transcript for reference) Zzxcnet 02:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

At a 9:30CDT (10:30EDT) news conference, they were unable to confirm reports of a prison riot. If this is added to the main article or the New Orleans article, it should be said that this is unconfirmed. Zzxcnet 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Major flooding expected in New Orleans

Pump 6 (at the 17th St. Canal Levee) has now failed, as confirmed by Major C Ray Nagin on WWL-TV. This pump had been partially offsetting the levee breach. Since the sandbagging effort has failed, major flooding is expected. I think this deserves a mention on the main article page. I've already added it to the New Orleans effects page. This announcement came shortly after 8:00pm CDT. Zzxcnet 01:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Be bold. --Titoxd 01:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes go ahead, it's worthy. Good thing about having a separate article on New Orleans is that, even if others remove the content in this page for trimming, they don't have to worry about losing that information, as it's still preserved in the "children" pages. Keep updating what's heard from TV. --Vsion 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've added it. The effort at blocking the flooding has been all but abandoned, as the breach is expected to worsen in the overnight hours, putting the entire city at the Lake Pontchartrain's water level. With no pumping capacity, the water will flow into the city without limit. Zzxcnet 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism User:Tewdrig

thanks Tixod for cleaning up this mess. Reported vandalism.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• No problem. Thanks for reporting him. --Titoxd 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Water level above sea level?

One thing I don't understand. How can the water level goes up a few feets above sea level? Any clue? --Vsion 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, not being a NOAA oceanographer my way of saying it is that in New Orleans they are at sea level. The water level in the Gulf/Mississippi River rises above the normal surface level, there probably a scientific word for that, like when they say mean tide is at such and such time. The water then has to go somewhere and over the land it would be "above sea level."Kyle Andrew Brown 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The water coming down the missisippi river from "north" is coming from higher ground and is intrinsiclly at "above sea level." The land AROUND New Orleans is above sea level. there are some miles of land before you get to the sea. Rick Boatright 02:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The normal level for Lake Pontchartrain is one foot above sea level. Right now the gauges say it's four feet, due to the rain and flooding from Katrina. It's dropping fairly rapidy, though.--Kbk 05:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Bush's reaction

Do we have anything about this? Cutting vacation time too late, comparison to Bush's reaction to tsunami, 9/11, comparison to Bush 41's reaction to SF quake of 1989, distraction to Iraq War. Is any of this relevant?

That's a POV violation, even though I would agree with you (too much pressure on poor Haley Barbour and Kathleen Blanco). CrazyC83 02:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no need whatsoever to have his response unless it is extremely notable - and it ain't. --Golbez 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, he probably took too much time to react, like Bush Sr. took when Andrew hit Florida. However, those are opinions, therefore Points of View, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for the article. --Titoxd 02:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

But you could easily spin it in terms of news or commentary reaction ("Several (credible sources / notable weblogs) have expressed upset at the perceived slow reaction of President Bush to etc"). A couple here ("CNN's Cafferty Takes Cheap Shot at Bush's “Vacation" After Hurricane") and here ("2006 Budget slashes funding for the US Army Corps of Engineers, NO Districts, by $71.2 million dollars") to get started, and just search Google news for 'bush' and 'orleans'. Emphasise the cut in National Guard funding in the context of the fact that Popular Mechanics predicted this a few years ago. [10] How could Bush ignore Popular Mechanics? -Ashley Pomeroy 05:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Martial law - incorrect term?

According to this report on NOLA.com, the Louisiana state Attorney General's office has said that no such term as "martial law" exists in Louisiana; from the text of the article it would seem that "state of emergency" would be more accurate. I haven't done any editing on this because I have no specialist knowledge, and really don't know anything more than what the aforementioned NOLA.com piece says. Loganberry (Talk) 02:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• All the major news outlets have called it martial law, and since the military moved in to provide security, it seems like the correct term. I'd leave it as is. --Titoxd 02:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And now an anon has reverted it. He quoted MSNBC, which is ironic, because I heard Brian Williams saying that parts of Lousiana were under martial law. Any official (or newer) information? --Titoxd 02:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Compromise; in the first instance refer to it as "a state of emergency ("martial law")" and then refer to it as martial law thereafter. "State of emergency" is slightly confusing outside the US, because it's a specific condition, whereas martial law is pretty much understood worldwide. -Ashley Pomeroy 05:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Evacuation Methods

Government officials are already considering taking these stranded people out of New Orleans/Hell's Half Acre. I've heard some pretty wild ideas about how to remove these people from this hell hole. One was to use cruise ships to take them to other ports on the Gulf coast (Galveston, Pensacola, Tampa, etc.) I guess we should use any means possible but what does everyone else think?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Other bad news

Fox News (yeah, I know) is reporting that two men opened fire on the first precinct NOPD stationhouse with automatic weapons. Police returned fire, and the two men fled to the French Quarter, but could not give chase. And Reuters is reporting sharks in the water.--YoungFreud 04:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Because Fox News never tells the truth. If you're going to disclaim it with "yeah, I know", why bother citing them at all? --Golbez 04:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Shark, not sharks --Scapegoat pariah 05:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I added the source for the shark to the document (and replaced plural with singular). --scottru

Nothing on Google news about 'shots' or 'gunfire' + 'orleans' or 'police station' + 'orleans', and it raises the question as to how the miscreants "fled to the French Quarter" - boats? A police officer was apparently wounded in a shooting incident, however (search for "gunfire"). [11] -Ashley Pomeroy 05:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

And judging by subsequent news, yes, the looters are moving about in boats. Armed with rifles looted from a Wal-Mart. They've tried to break into a Children's Hospital, for heaven's sake, smashing up emergency vehicles in the process. I wouldn't shed a tear if someone shot them, and let their bodies sink into the swamp. -Ashley Pomeroy 17:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The article, in the intro table, gives the date of conclusion for the storm's duration as Aug. 30. But now it's Aug. 31 and I believe the storm is still extant as a tropical system, a tropical depression now. Doesn't that count, or does it not count anymore once it drops below trop. storm status? Everyking 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Subculture section

This "Katrina's effect on the internet subculture" section seems astoundingly, stupidly trivial in this context.

I mistakenly reverted to that version, but I agree. Revert on sight as vandalism. --Titoxd 05:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

While you guys took care of it here, I followed the editor's other contributions... he's basically making promotional links for sites he worked on (so what else is new, seems to be the major fad lately), so spamming rather than outright vandalism. DreamGuy 05:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What on Earth is wrong with these people? First the bloggers, then this... tsk tsk. --Titoxd 06:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

this section came back. but now it is gone. goodbye! Drseudo | Talk! 06:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Who reinserted it? I've been trying to go through the diffs, and I can't seem to find the culprit. This should now be {{test4}}-level vandalism. --Titoxd 06:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think what happened was it was inserted one place, removed, it was put another place, you accidentally put it back in the original place (making two copies), then it was removed in one but not the other.... DreamGuy 06:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dang... now I've got to {{test4}} myself. Oy veh. --Titoxd 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Twin Spans

I was watching the news feed last night (29th night-30th morning) and they were reporting that the twin spans had been "destroyed". They didn't have pictures, but they kept repeating that word. Anyone have more info? --Gryn 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

All you need to know is: use the Crescent City Connection to evacuate New Orleans.

CNN's website has video of the damage to the spans over Lake Ponchartrain. Go to pretty much any article there right now and there will be links to the myriad video clips. Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

casualty chart is for confirmed death only

The casualty chart is for confirmed death only. Please do not include prediction or speculated figure. No doubt, this will make it way off the final figure, but it's the only way to update the chart consistently and to keep the figure verifiable. --Vsion 07:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Final figure? Won't be seeing one for a couple months...maybe not until a year 207.30.145.6 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then we are just going to wait for those months. Awolf002 13:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

If there is a confirmed and a speculated number (not a rough guess, like more than Camille) by a government agency, I think it should be shown as a range, with the lower number being the confirmed toll and the higher number being the speculated toll. CrazyC83 14:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Official casualty projection/speculation can still be documented in the text. But because different people will make differing estimation, there will be many different number. Often in diaster, these speculations tend to over-estimate the final death toll. It's therefore difficult to update the chart with these figures. Instead, could we put a footnote at the bottom of the chart to indicate that those numbers refer to confirmed deaths only, and that the projected death may be much higher? --Vsion 17:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The "rest of the world" is perplexed

Irrelevant rant about America removed.

Evercat, you cannot remove everything you disagree with. That is called vandalism. Refer to the article on [[Internet Trolls]. This explains that the worst trolls are those that accuse others of being Trolls, in order to defeat their argument. I also find it hard to believe what you write about yourself on your user page, ie, opposing fanaticism, left liberal, etc. leistung 14:00, 31 August 2005 (CET)

Actually, I can. Talk pages are for discussion of how the article can be made better. Sure, there's often lots of talk that isn't really about that, but if it becomes divisive and annoying it can simply be removed. I've had it done to me a few times. Evercat 12:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Evercat, I do not think you and others want to make the article better. You only want to win any technological battle, and put the points which suit you and others who think like you. You just remove what you disagree with, as you say it is "UnAmerican". You will always win, any way you can, and that is what is important to you. I don't think that these actions would be popular in Edinburgh. leistung 14:13, 31 August 2005 (CET)

So, what does any of this have to do with improving the Hurricane Katrina article? android79 12:32, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

not much althoug htere is the question of why my comment was removed.Geni 12:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just removed the entire section. Evercat 12:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I did as well, and I apologize for that, but this section can only ever be flamebait. It has no relevance to improving the article, and as such, has no place here. Normally I'd just leave well enough alone, but this high-profile article is bound to attract many new users, and such trolling will only distract people from actually working on the article. android79 13:01, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

It is pointless for me or my kind to write anything in wiki, as someone like you, a self appointed wiki policeman will immediately delete it, as you have labelled me a troll. As wiki states, people who label others as trolls are the worst kind of troll. See internet troll Leistung 14:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

You can write what you want; it's just that people don't like inflammatory comments that have nothing to do with improving the article. ~~ N (t/c) 14:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets Take a Deep Breath

It is obvious, at this time, that leistung has some very strong opinions about this event, and we cannot do anything to change that. It is time for all of us, leistung included, to take a deep breath and step away from the virtual fist fights that seem to be developing over this.

leistung, please remember that while this is an internationally contributed Wiki, many of the contributers are American and as such, events in our own back yard (literally to me, I'm on the edge of the storm zone) tend to get a lot of attention. In many ways, this means that articles about ongoing events will tend to turn into news sources as everyone tries to provide information to the rest. In time, this article will be pared down, as things settle down, but it will get a lot of attention for many months to come.

My fellow Americans, let us remember that some people outside of America will be puzzled by our attention to events such as this. Hell, I remember after Fredrick in '79, my mother in Chicago asked me how we did 'in that storm'. Just as we have trouble comprehending something like monsoon flooding in the subcontinent area, their non-experience with the power of a Hurricane means that they do not have a frame of reference to the forces it generates.

So I ask this, leistung, please step back and understand why we are putting so much energy into this. Nobody is forcing you to read this, but understand while we do. To everyone else, try not to over-react to his and others rants. Don't delete or rant back, but simply nod and carry on. Donovan Ravenhull 13:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Donovan, you write something reasonable, and then spoil it all by saying that I am ranting. I can well understand that this is a major event, but major events of the same size in other countries do not get this coverage. I am annoyed that things are centering on New Orleans, which seemed to escape, but not on the (smaller) places where the storm hit. I really feel sorry for these small townsfolk. Incidentally, the term Hurricane seems to be specific only to the USA. Other places have big storms too. Leistung 15:26, 31 August 2005 (CET)

The word "hurricane" comes from the Taino culture of pre-Columbian Caribbean islands. It is a synonym for "typhoon" which similarly comes from a regional word. In both the Pacific and Atlantic, the generic term "tropical storm" applies for lower-strength weather systems. --Dhartung | Talk 16:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm gonna break my own recomendation here. When a post like this is made, it comes across as a rant rather than a resoned argument.

America the land of the dead and the stupids! Worse than the Balkan or the 3rd world. People drowning by the hundred and shooting eatch other in the streets, even though they have been told many days ago to flee because the damn hurrican is coming head on at 160mph. Looting, racial riots, army in the streets, total disarray, all so ridiculous! UBL must be laughing off his arse in his cave, the yankee terrorize themselves even if no turban is in sight. So despicable.

When terms like 'stupid' and such are made, you have defeated yourself and your arguments.

Donovan Ravenhull 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Donovan, this is most unfair. I didn't say that. More ammunition for those trying to label me as a troll. Leistung 15:51, 31 August 2005 (CET)

To be fair, I don't think he wrote that bit. That was some anon. [12] Evercat 13:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Then I heartly appologize to Leistung for putting words in his mouth that he did to type. Donovan Ravenhull 13:59, 31 August 2005

No Probs. Leistung 14:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As I have just said on my User talk page:

I made an assumption, and I'm sure you know the old saying about that. (I certainly made an ass out of myself in that case.) What I saw was you saying that 'you should not delete what you don't aggree with' and given the difference of opinion you have been involved with, I assumed you had basicly lost your temper. I once again hope that you accept my appology.

I just wanted to make appology public in front of those I made the mistake in front of. Donovan Ravenhull 14:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Donovan, you seem like a nice guy. You are my sort of person. No need to apologise at all. By the way, I never lose my cool. Leistung 14:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The reason there's so much coverage here is that Wikipedians, like internet users in general, are disproportionatelly comprised of Americans. People edit what they want to. If there was a major event in your back yard, wherever that is, you'd be more likely to write about it than one that was further away. And you have an odd definition of "escape". Evercat 13:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

over on the wikiproject fopr dealing with systemic bias we long ago decided that the best aproach was to add to articles of events that had no recived enough coverage rather than complain that others were reciveing too much.Geni 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It's pointless to turn away willing editors or shorten an article -- the information will just be added again later on. --Dhartung | Talk 19:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Q:When was evacuation ordered?

Section 2.1 ("Preparations and expectations before landfall/New Orleans") mentions that the Mayor of New Orleans ordered the city's first mandatory evacuation. When was this done? Could the date (and preferably the time) be added to the article? I was very interested in how long before the storm citizens had official warning of it, and this information would be helpful. Thanks! -- Creidieki 12:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The "mandatory" evacuation (in reality, short of a declaration of martial law, authorities could not force people to leave) was ordered by Mayor Nagin in a news conference that he gave about 10am Sunday [13]. This is the NOAA report of about the same time [14]; Katrina went Cat4 early in the morning and Cat5 by 7am. It was known Saturday that the storm would hit roughly around Louisiana, but it wasn't until Sunday that the strength was known. --Dhartung | Talk 16:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was a brave decision to order mandatory evacuation, and this single decision has saved tens (if not hundreds) thousands of lives. Credits to the Mayor and the Storm Trackers (whoever they are)! --Vsion 17:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Ham Radio Response

How come there has been no mention of Ham radio in this article in the Response section 63.210.193.178 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Orleans Parish, City of New Orleans

I removed the "New" from "New Orleans" in the table of deaths per county/parish for consistency. Seeing "New Orleans" in a table that specified East Baton Rouge (the parish containing the city of Baton Rouge) struck me as jarring, the other states were already broken down solely by county, and the link was already pointing to the Orleans Parish article. David Iwancio 2005-08-31T14:23Z

This is not a blog

If you aren't here to help an encyclopedia, read, don't write. This is not a blog. WAS 4.250 15:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

About Wikipedia

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [15] WAS 4.250 15:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

CNN news agency says America is like the 3rd world!

Whoever edited away may comment: "America the land of the dead and the stupids! Worse than the Balkan or the 3rd world. blah-blah"

please note that CNN website startpage says very exactly:

"It's like being in a Third World country" at this link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/31/katrina.people/index.html

The associated image shows an afro-american woman crying next to a corpse in wrapped in white linen, obviously alluding to Black Africa impression.

If CNN says the same as me, how can I be a troll?

Face the truth, America made a very poor impression of itself by Katharina management. All the cold war rhetoric "we don't need civil defence, we have enough nukes to deter enemy" now fired back. Mother nature cannot be stopped with nukes, and USA was unprepared to disaster avoidance and remedy. All the fed, state, posse, county and village "authorities" are now blocking each other over power feud and thus rescue is in disarray.

Anybody who has grown up behind the iron curtain is utterly suprised how can a country be so ineffective, so lacking in coherent response. Shouldn't FEMA hand control everything down to the smallest sewing needle that fell in the water to make sure rescue progresses the fastest and damn the constitution until October? America is mega-rich in resources, it should cope with minimal loss of life. But all the liberty ideas now just lead to animosity and inefficiency. Many die because nobody obeys. You need to learn fast, because the chinese commie may attack you in 25 years and you will fall if disorganized, just like the frenchies did in 1940! Hear, hear!

Yeah, but you see...the chances of another country invading the U.S. and then returning with one invading soldier left alive is almost zero. The people of the U.S. would come at an invading force with every gun, pitchfork and toilettank cover they could find.--MONGO 20:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Warning to everybody else: Do not feed this troll. Attempting to reason with insanity is insane. ~~ N (t/c) 14:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there's absolutly no point in arguing with a nutjob, so just leave MONGO alone, and let him go back to polishing his shotgun and ranting about communists--172.156.178.23 04:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

He is very rude in such a sorrow time. But the civil defence issue (or the lack thereof) is valid. The troubling aspects of US "gun touting loneman" culture are undeniable (at least to foreign observers) and the idea of mainland China coming to you in a few more decades (it's more like 50 years) is not as tomclancy as it used to be some 6 years ago. What that liberal zombie network CNN says about Karina and thridworldliness shall not suppress Fox's faithful reporting. Offer your prayers for those in peril. God bless America! +

Nicktpar, this just shows that you are a troll. See internet troll Part of this is indeed Encyclopedic Material as the response of the authorities is very important. I have no doubt you think they are great, and you may be one of them. Whether you think anyone who points this out is a troll, or you delete articles you don't like is up to you. There will always be people like you who support the authorities right or wrong, in order to get ahead themselves. Leistung 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

There are guidelines for article talk pages: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for?. In particular, Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article and Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. There is no encyclopedic merit to the above rant or the responses to it, and there's no reason for it to be discussed here. android79 15:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Android, so you say. I think that the reponse of the authorities is highly relevant. But you want to suppress this. Well done! I am assuming that if I or anyone adds anything about this in the main article, you will cry "rant" and "troll" yet again, and immediately delete it, as you usually do. I do not notice you suggesting anything for the article. Only being negative. All you are doing is laying down your version of the law. Leistung 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I have yet to revert anything in the actual article that wasn't simple vandalism. Go ahead and add verifiably-sourced, NPOV edits regarding the response to the emergency by the authorities. Material on this is most certainly relevant, but there is no meaningful material in the above rant. It is merely an attempt to provoke a negative response. I haven't suggested anything for the article because I'm just now catching up on news coverage of the hurricane. android79 16:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Strategic Petroleum Reserve along Gulf

Can someone update the status preferably with links ? It would be nice to have confirmation they survived Katrina.

They're in underground salt mines, there is little question they would "survive", although it's possible that the Louisiana facility experienced surface damage. There are other locations in Texas, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Only the Bayou Choctaw facility near Baton Rouge was at risk. The other three (near Freeport, TX; Winnie, TX; and Lake Charles, LA) were completely unaffected. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

DON'T YOU PEOPLE REALIZE THIS WHOLE FUCKING PASSAGE IS AN EXERCISE IN TROLL-FEEDING?? jESUS CHRIST GET OVER YOURSELVES. tHE MORE RIGHT YOU ARE -- AND YOU ARE -- THE MORE IN THE WRONG YOU PUT YOURSELF BY WASTING TIME ON THESE IDIOTS-- yeah, go ahead, feed me feed me please....

I'm not sure what's going on with the "Troll" line near the top of the talk page. It's good advice, especially with a major event like this generating a lot of comments and potentially malicious visitors, so I'm putting it back for now, unless a concensus somehow decides it's not good to remind people of that (I don't see how it would be bad!). AySz88^-^ 16:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I removed it as the name suggests "troll" is a highly insulting name, meaning something like "scum" or "filth". See article Internet trolls. I personally have been referred to as a "troll" by my enemies on this discussion. Usually if you say something against the authorities, someone will immediately protect them and label the "offender" a "troll". Obviously you are trying to protect the community against me by reinstating the message. Why not say "Don't feed the Commies" too. Leistung 16:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Who has called you a troll? android79 16:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was called it by a few people. The name "troll" just annoys the hell out of people, and detacts from sensible discussion. A warning like "Don't feed the trolls" just annoys people who are not "trolls" and the actual "trolls" will be encouraged more. It just means that more effort is displaced from building a good article. It also encourages those who want to crush a good argument. If you call some a "troll", then they don't exist, and you can delete all of their work. Leistung 17:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Who, exactly? android79 17:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dream Guy is the main one. There are others, but I can't be bothered looking them up. Leistung 17:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I meant on this talk page. Nevermind, then. android79 17:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Another problem is the mixed metaphor. We don't normally call other fishermen "trolls". Gene Nygaard 15:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The complaining about being labeled a troll would work better if the person involved would refrain for further trolling while complaining... and the earlier comments were severely undeniably trollish, as identified by several people. It's sad how many people get suckered in everytime he goes trolling, especially with the earlier warnings. DreamGuy 20:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I put that reminder up there, and I put it there because, primarily, yes, of Leistung. After 20 years on Usenet, I don't have too much trouble identifying a troll. If he doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but this is not the time, nor the forum, for the communications he sees fit to inject, whether they're heartfelt and sincere or not.
--Baylink 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Dream Guy and Baylink, as least you are now out in the open. I could have been a little more diplomatic at the outset. However, you, Dream Guy, can never ever forget.

For other decent people out there, is very difficult to phrase things right, as many including myself can see aviodable disasters happening. My main point is that America has had few really bad disasters to learn from and I don't know how to put this correctly.

But you two are both negative and nasty. Statements which you personally disagree with, you label me a "scum" or "troll", which are the same thing. Your sort are like schoolyard bullies who always cause trouble. Leistung 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with being out of the closet. Trolling is an old and time honored sport. It's just not ontopic here, now. Your most recent comments suggest that perhaps you weren't really trolling after all. But the 'troll's refer to the postings, not the poster. And this is not really the time for trying to fix the underlying problem, no matter your motivations. Hastert was premature as well.
--Baylink 00:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Would you please remove the annoying warning on "trolling", as I/my actions are the one that this was directed towards, and you now do not believe me to be a troll. If it remains, I can only assume it for my enemy Dream Guy's enjoyment. Leistung 09:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Arguing about who's troll and who's not is completely out of the point here. This page serves as a discussion for Hurricane Katrina. --Spiritual 12:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Response

Working largely from one NYT article, I cobbled together the framework of a Response section, which I expect will quickly expand. I'm looking to articles like 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for inspiration, here. I'm not expecting this article to perfectly rival that one, but the US impact is going to be considerable and I wouldn't be surprised if this article also spawns sub-articles. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Restored above which was accidentally deleted amid the kerfuffle. --Dhartung | Talk 16:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

How high can the casulties go?

I have friend right outside LA and said "it could like those hurricanes in the early 1900's??" It is very sad situation.

Well, in 1900 the buildings were not so massively built like today; and in 1900 there were only telegraphs to coordinate disaster reliefs. But Galveston was only a small village, compared to New Orleans... Aren't there reference data from Chinese floods? Or from tsunami regions where the coast was populated as dense as in New Orleans? It's interesting that in Europe where hurricanes can't form, private homes are mostly built from concrete, not wood... --Keimzelle 19:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

From Hurricane Katrina

Posted by 66.170.216.73 10:10, 31 August 2005 at article with misformatted name, which I have redirected here. - choster 16:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I am searchin for my brother John Musser. He stayed in Slidell, La during the hurricane. If you have info please email me at marciamwest@hotmail.com. Thanks for any info about Lakewood subdivison or St. Margaret Mary School, too. My friend here in Houston wants info about Country Club in Covington, LA.

Angels don't play this HAARP!

Does anyone know for sure if the SDI's HAARP giant plasma emitter grid was running during the Katie crisis? Some (many) people seriously think it can modify weather large-scale so as to control global geopolitics. And Katrina did change course suddenly by a full 90degrees in the middle of the mexican gulf.

A conspiracy theory section will be inevitable for the article sooner or later. Local religious commentators on small CATVs already claim it was done by YHWH to punish ungodly people (proof: all the casinos east of Vegas were so perfectly destroyed, remember that gambling is an utmost crime against God, who does not play the dice)! Considering how widespread religous conservatism is in USA, such ideas will surface in the States for sure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 16:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC).

It's not even a "plasma emitter grid" (what the heck is that anyhow?), just a bunch of RF transmitter and reciever antennas. And its run by the Naval Research Lab and the Air Force Research Lab, not SDI. Original poster clearly has no idea what he's talking about. -Loren 08:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

All of the casinos east of Las Vegas were destroyed? The casinos in Tunica MS, Baton Rouge, Cherokee NC, Atlantic City NJ, and various other locales in the east might disagree with you. But we didn't really expect logical thought in this section, did we. --Golbez 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

O no! Not the Casinos! Please let them be safe! Leistung 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think the anonymous poster above you was speaking sarcastically about "all" of the casinos east of Vegas being "destroyed." jcomp489

It didn't even manage to destroy the casinos in other parts of the state of Louisiana. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Crying Wolf 2

OK. I was a bit premature. Katrina in New Orleans is more serious than I first thought, due mainly to the situation with the levees. Sometimes the aftermath is worse than the main event... Is the levee break down to Act or God, Incompetence, Bad Design or just plain Bad Luck? Anyway I hope all is uphill from here on. Leistung 17:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. --Golbez 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the levee break will fall under the catagory of Act of God. The simple fact is that they were not (and possibly cannot be) built to handle stresses of this magnatude. For all our techonological advancement, Mother Nature can be a real bitch when she puts her mind to it. Donovan Ravenhull 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not an engineer however, and it's just early speculation, but if their's any human design that could be pointed out it would have to be settling in New Orleans in the first place. And that, to me, would seem a bit extreme jcomp489

The levees are primarily designed for protecting against a hypothetical "100 year" Mississippi flood. Given the below-sea-level elevation of much of New Orleans, and the unpredictability of hurricanes, it would be impossible to protect it from all scenarios. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

As Steve Gregory said, this is turning into the "slow motion version" of the worst case scenario for New Orleans. AySz88^-^ 17:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Hancock Co.

No reports of deaths in Hancock County, Mississippi? Or have they just not been able to get out there to search as of yet? Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC) I say they have not gotten to that stage yet.

Somewhere I heard that they are currently looking and hadn't found anyone dead in Hancock County yet. It is a mostly rural county, with no town larger than 10,000, and hence it would be much easier to evacuate, and CNN yesterday said that they reportedly managed to get 99% of the population out. I wouldn't expect nearly as many dead in Hancock (or Jackson) County as in Harrison County or Greater New Orleans. CrazyC83 19:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

First reports of deaths in New Orleans

"U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) told reporters she had heard at least 50 to 100 people were dead in New Orleans." I think we should add it into the totals.[16]

Can't understand what she meant by "at least 50 to 100 people", if she just said "at least 50 people" it would make our update much easier ... --Vsion 18:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

"at least 50 to 100" = the bare minimum being in the range of 50 to 100. I don't think it should be in the article, really, because "she heard" isn't the best source, even if she is a Landrieu, farting sunshine or whatnot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its false however CNN reports from AP that the mayor of New orleans say "that possibile hundrends prehaps thousands may died." So it is not confirmed but it is showing what way we are heading and i hope not but look very likely and very possibile with the epic flooding in that city.

The two words "to 100" doesn't really add any information, since the least is still 50. Anyway, from the way she said it, this sounds like an official count on confirmed death; and the articles are updated. On the other hand, the mayor used the word "... may ...", so this is a speculation/projection figure, not confirmed count. --Vsion 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Article Outline - Splitting

As this article becomes longer and older, people may want more of a brief overview of the storm (as an encylopedia usually is). I purpose that their is enough information here to split the article into Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Katrina damages, Hurricane Katrina looting, Hurricane Katrina Response or some varaition of.--mitrebox 18:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is already Damage to infrastructure by Hurricane Katrina, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, and other pages in Category:Hurricane Katrina. I'm fairly sure that as the article grows, things will be split as appropriate, but not yet (since the event's still taking place). (Are subpages appropriate for Wikipedia articles?) AySz88^-^ 18:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, subpages are only appropriate for User space, or for temporary use (say, when editing an article wholesale). I wouldn't break out individual pages unless they represented very actively edited, overfull sections, though. The Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake shows "Effect of ..." articles for each country affected, and one "Humanitarian response" article, a Timeline, and a list of countries affected. We can probably handle Katrina in fewer articles, despite the higher availability of news services and potential editors. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Somebody created a ridiculously detailed to-do list, e.g. Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Ontario. Most of these were removed. The only areas that will conceivably need full articles are the three most-affected states (LA, AB, MS) and a general article for other places affected. Well, maybe FL deserves its own, too, so I left it in. Then there were the "topic" articles. I refactored the proposed articles to Social effects and Economic effects. We shouldn't create articles willy-nilly unless there is a demonstrated need, e.g. a section of the main article becoming unwieldy. Otherwise it's a potential stub that could just confuse readers and duplicate effort. Think carefully before splitting, or suggesting a split. I'm not even convinced the remaining list makes sense. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tornado inconsistency?

In the section on tornados it states there are no deaths reported yet, but in the section on Georgia it reports a fatal tornado. Which report is true? Chuck Y 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The 2 deaths in Georgia were indirect deaths related to traffic accidents partially caused by the tornado (and probably the slick roads as well). Notice in the GA death numbers they are shown as such. CrazyC83 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Will Katrina repel USA from Iraq?

Considering hurricane damages and economic loss may total more than 1yr budget of US military spending, may this bring an early end to Iraq occupation as something that cannot be afforded any more? Uncle Sam will have to cough up huge sums to rebuild everything and the republican riches certainly do not want to pay more taxes. Leaving Iraq would save near a billion bucks a day. Is this to be discussed under "other effects"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC).

No crystal ball, please. --Vsion 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

They should consider moving structures that can't be saved (or structures that will need a lot of work and could be moved as part of that work) to ground that wasn't already sinking into the Gulf. --chaizzilla 16:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hundreds, maybe thousands dead"

From the Associated Press:

Hundreds -- maybe thousands -- may be dead in New Orleans

The mayor said today that Hurricane Katrina probably killed thousands of people in New Orleans. 'We know there is a significant number of dead bodies in the water,' and others dead in attics, Mayor Ray Nagin said. Asked how many, he said: 'Minimum, hundreds. Most likely, thousands.'" [17]

Almost unbelievable. --tomf688^<TALK> 19:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Incredible, and even sadder that it was just as many had expected e.g. Dr. Suhayda of LSU. That, and the Tsunami combined to have the most forceful evacuation warnings I've ever heard from officials, and we still had many casualties. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It's going to be interesting to see what the actual figures are. Of course, we're not going to even begin to get accurate estimates for weeks yet. These things are hard to guess, because a lot of initial, speculative reports can be wildly inaccurate in any direction. jcomp489

This looks bad. Maybe the US can now get aid/help from other countries! Leistung 19:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

However these are very likely due to the amount of flooding in New Orleans.

I added the mayor's name and link to the "thousands dead" fatality count in the article. I think its a huge leap from what was being reported before, so I'd say a source is pretty much required.

Models at Louisiana State project as many as 80000 Dead: http://www.startribune.com/stories/1519/5592083.html

Pressure units

Both sources cited use "millibars" for these pressures. There is no reason for this silly pseudo-SI nonsense. There is no reason to use units so unfamiliar that whoever added them cannot even spell them correctly so that the links work, and even sometimes spelled them with goofy and improper capitalization, something that is also frequent especially with this unfamiliar and little-used prefix. If you want to use the SI pascals, better to use the units used in weather reports in Canada, and the units familiar to many people from their use in other fields such as chemistry and physics: kilopascals. Gene Nygaard 20:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your concern is? If you're talking about a cited news agency using mbars, I'm afraid we can't do anything about that. Or do you mean we should use stuff like 90200 kilopascals instead of 902 mbar? I'm pretty sure that meteorology uses mbar for atmospheric pressure instead of Pascals. AySz88^-^ 22:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Met Office website here in the UK [18] says that hectopascals are used scientifically, but that millibars are still used in UK and US public forecasts. (Canada uses kilopascals in its forecasts, as mentioned above.) I'd say that "millibars" would be much more readily understood than "hecto/kilopascals" here in Britain, and if that's also the case in the US then that's probably more important than strict adherence to any particular system. Using the SI system is a good thing in general, but not at disproportionate cost to clarity. Loganberry (Talk) 22:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

PDFTT. The reports from the pertinent formal reporting agency conform to common meterological practice in the country affected; that is the protocol we should use in the article. Parentheticalized translations to units commonly used in public reports in other countries would be fine as well, IMHO, but I can't see any reason for translating into arbitrary "scientifically correct" units.
--Baylink 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In the EU it is e.g. "1014 hektopascal" when the weather is told on the news radios. However, as long as it is metric, one should not mind it, it is a waste of time. The enemy is the customary/imperial world and metric infighting is bad, because it hurts the crusade against ancien base12 measurements. In fact metric infighting is used by the customary clan as a weapon against metrication. When the whole world is metricated we can move on to educate people to use only SI-proper expressions. The mBar/hPa issue is moot until CNN keeps reporting that much of Orleans is under 7 to 15 feet of water... 195.70.32.136 07:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu>

I do not believe it is the place of Wikipedia to get involved in metrication arguments, it's supposed to be here to report, not so much as to take sides or to organize tactics to bring about one end or the other. With that said, bar (unit) has been used inconsistently over the years, and I've sometimes seen 1 bar = 101 325 Pa instead of 100 000 Pa. Assuming one or the other (or converting in general) can cause problems with false precision.

The US National Weather Service reports atmospheric pressure simultaneously in millibar and inches of a column of mercury. Reports on atmospheric pressure that use the NWS as a source should use one, the other, or both, but any conversions away from either of these two units should be noted (e. g. "1010 mbar (approx. 1010 hPa)" or "29.83 in Hg (approx. 1010 hPa)"), perhaps with a link to Bar (unit), False precision or both.

24.110.195.131 20:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)David Iwancio

moving "Hurricane Katrina effects by region"?

It is a bad idea to move this entire section away. Furthermore, no summary is provided here. We should instead move the section on Hurricane Katrina effects on oil industry, because it is an isolated, well-defined topic. --Vsion 20:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding warning of blocking for vandalism

I have added the following warning to the top of this article as an HTML comment:

Anyone vandalizing this article may be blocked for up to 48 hours without further warning. 

The same warning (with "will" instead of "may") appears at the top of George W. Bush, another frequently-vandalized article. I think this is a good thing for such a high-profile article. If you object and remove it, please discuss your reasons here. FreplySpang (talk) 20:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I support this, I personally don't like to block without warning, however I think that we should give vandals fair warning that we're annoyed at constantly having to revert this article and may at our discretion block them for vandalizing it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Freply. It is indeed a special case.

By the way, Vsion, In my 3+ years of experience on this wiki, I have invariably found that splitting up a large, rapidly changing article helps. Writers can focus better on smaller chunks. Also, your watchlist can let you know which sections are getting edited. It's also a great defense against vandalism. After the editing flurry slows down - say, mid September - I will favor re-integrating the parts into one long narrative. Uncle Ed 20:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with splitting, done that myself also. But why not move the auxillary topics such as "preparation" and "effect on oil industry". I'm afraid this article is losing focus. --Vsion 20:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Further comments: This article is for readers NOW, not for editors, not for mid-september. Please help readers to get to their concern quickly. The link to Hurricane Katrina effects by region is very unclear to those not familar with wikipedian writing, unlike the title Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. --Vsion 21:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be written with future readers in mind, as a repository of human knowledge we should expect to still be around 100 years from now, and not a news report? *Dan* 01:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the warning to GWB's article, but I didn't here because I figured most people vandalizing GWB would be more familiar with Wiki, whereas most people vandalizing here would be ignorant newbies, and furthermore, this article will get a LOT more legit edits from newbies than GWB will, and I didn't want to scare them away. --Golbez 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't think it will have that effect, but that's just my guess. FreplySpang (talk) 22:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Floodwalls?

This page cites the Army Corps of Engineers as saying that floodwalls failed, not levees. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on floodwalls, so there's some major revising to do if editors need to change every mention of failed levees to failed floodwalls. AySz88^-^ 20:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the distinction is only made by engineers? I don't know the difference, but many places are calling them levees, so I don't think we need to be in a rush to fix it. Friday (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the distinction is the earthen bank of the levee with a steel/concrete floodwall atop. It's definitely part of the same flood prevention system, so I'd say that a subsection in levee would be sufficient. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:54:06, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

There is a real distinction between a levee and a floodwall. Not all floodwalls are on top of levees, and most levees don't have floodwalls. This image (may be deleted soon for copyright problems) of the breach at the 17th street canal shows that it is indeed a floodwall not a levee. A levee is a gravity structure, a floodwall takes bending stresses. Floodwalls are much narrower in cross-section. Maybe this is just jargon - I always find it strange that people tend to dismiss the distinctions that engineers make as jargon, but they don't take issue with a botanist making a distiction between pine trees and spruce trees. Toiyabe 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing the distinction (I'm an engineer), but I am saying that granularity can be taken too far. Whether or not the generic flood protection device takes bending stresses has little encyclopedic impact on the failure of said generic flood protection device, even if it's of critical importance to the engineers doing damage assessment. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:36:01, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

It's not an issue of granularity, because the one is not a sub-set of the other. I agree that to most folks it's an unimportant distinction. The question is whether Wikipedia should use the term that most media outlets are using, or the term that the Army Corps of Engineers uses. I would argue for the latter. Right now this article is more journalistic then encyclopedic, but with all the editing activity right now there's no point in addressing that yet. Toiyabe 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

ABC: A National Crisis

On Wed 31 Aug 05 ABC calls Katrina "A National Crisis", any way that phrase can fit in the content?Kyle Andrew Brown 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

That's just the media sensationalizing it. A good friend of mine lost her house in it, so I definitely consider it a tragedy, but until all 48 Continental States have been damaged, this can not be considered "national." -Josh, 12:13 AM EST, September 1st, 2005

The economic effects may very well cause a full national crisis (oil crisis, tax raises needed) or a company in LA may need to lay off all workers because its main business partner in New Orleans was totally destroyed. The economy may stop growing for some time due to huge costs. It will affect the world economy badly. There should be changes in US law and policing (more autoritarian) because of all the anarchy we have seen on live TV. You can't afford that in post-9/11 times, but people will resist taking away more freedoms, it will be a political crises. If aid from the north does not pour in as thick as expected, even the confederate sentiment may have a big revival. You don't need a gypsy fortune-teller to foresee these. It is already a national crisis.

"There should be changes in US law and policing (more autoritarian) because of all the anarchy we have seen on live TV." Making massive changes to a political structure while under enormous stress is never a good idea.

Bloomberg article

here's a bloomberg.com piece with a bunch of good categorized factual rollup data.
--Baylink 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

UWisc CIMSS references

I doubt these references are required or necessary to be displayed in the article. The text on their page regarding using images reads: "If any of the images provided here are to be displayed elsewhere (internet, publications, etc.), please reference CIMSS. Thank you." "Please reference" is not the same as "you must reference under penalty of law".

The images are creditted on the image description page anyways, which is their purpose. We don't need to clutter up the main articles with courtesy links. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't do that. I don't remember the exact details, but I believe CIMSS (or someone) asked us to add the courtesy link. --Titoxd 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Wisconsin is pretty partial to having their material acknowledged in the public forum. The legislature gets involved with the University letting things slip by. I would respect a Wisconsin notice for attribution.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

We do acknolwedge the source of images, on the image description page. If we are required to attribute the source of the image, it becomes a speedy deletion candidate under CSD I3. --fvw* 01:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Fine. But do those 15 characters *really* cause that much problem. You can treat it as a derivative work of a US Government image, if you like. I think it's only meet to credit it. I asked up front, and they didn't sound all that concerned to me; they were like "wow; thanks."
--Baylink 00:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Did someone yank it, and *not* cleanup the infobox? Cause that's unprofessional.
--24.129.168.240 15:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

International reaction

While the US usually is a giver and not a reciever of help, and certainly can help itself, I'd like to know about international reaction, attention and help. Any information. Anything worthy to put in an article? — Sverdrup 00:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Did read that President of Venezuela offered to send oil etc. Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/08/31/afx2199612.htmlKyle Andrew Brown 01:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Canada's offered help, but I'll have to dig up the link --YoungFreud 03:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

At least one Canadian search and rescue team is already in New Orleans. Pollinator 03:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about this group? [19]. I have heard something now that CTV's now reporting that Homeland Security has blocked Canadian supplies and personnel into the affected region, although the Canadian Red Cross has been allowed into the area. If I get a substantied report from CTV, I'll update.--YoungFreud 04:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The Russians, via the UN, offer to help, but the American ambassador says "no, thanks". [20].--YoungFreud 04:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And, according to Andrea Mitchell of CNN, the US has declined aid from Canada, Germany, Venezuela, and other unamed countries.--YoungFreud 05:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, the word on the international humanitarian aid, from Reuters courtesy Wired, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier on Wednesday 10 to 12 foreign governments have offered general assistance to the United States to deal with the hurricane aftermath but no decision had been made about how these offers might be used.[21]

• 25 nations have offered assistance, according to [22]
• Nations That Have Offered Katrina Hurricane Aid:
• Russia
• Japan
• Canada
• France
• Honduras
• Germany
• Venezuela
• Jamaica
• Australia
• UK/Northern Ireland
• Netherlands
• Switzerland
• Greece
• Hungary
• Colombia
• Dominican Republic
• El Salvador
• Mexico
• China
• South Korea
• Israel
• United Arab Emirates
• Taiwan
• Sri Lanka
• Singapore

Simesa 17:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

humor is important to history

humor is important to history but I understnad your not wanting this to be on the Hurricane Katrina page.

http://www.illwillpress.com/kat.html

any idea where it should go?

Not in Wikipedia. This is not encyclopedic. --Titoxd 01:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

the "this land is my land" cartoons are.

However, the Jib Jab cartoons gained national, and even international recognition. You can't compare them to an illwill blog. --Titoxd 01:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'll give it a week and see if it takes off.

BTW have you watched it?

Still non-notable. BTW, it isn't that funny to begin with. --Titoxd 02:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it should be in the article, but it is funny as hell and a good point if you think about it.--mitrebox 03:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Somewhat notable, but profane. Definitely does not belong in the article. CrazyC83 03:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

What information is contain there? Why should the world know about it? --Vsion 05:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, humor is great in any context. It lifts the human spirit. I can think of a good example. In the first Gulf War, an Iraq man was talking to an English Reporter. A jet fighter had just missed a bridge and hit a village instead. The man said "My wife and children are in that village". The reporter said "Aren't you annoyed with me, being British?". The Iraqi said, "Don't worry. This is a Saudi plane. The British planes never miss the target.". The Iraqi is one good guy! Respect! Leistung 09:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Scam Sites

There's word of internet opportunists trying to scam folks donating to Katrina relief efforts. [23]. It should be mentioned, and that people who want to help should go to fema.gov for a list of reputable charities.--YoungFreud 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

SOURCE OF FEMA ESTIMATE??

Is that death toll reliable 1013 people???

Couldn't find source on this, so took it out until source is known. --Vsion 05:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Fox News report about AK-47 gunmen

I wouldn't rely on the report from Fox News. News media has consistently reported firearms that even look like AK-47s as AK-47s. In reality, a real AK-47 is an automatic weapon, which is quite rare to find in America and heavily regulated. Automatic weapons are rarely used in crimes because of their scarcity. These were most likely semi-automatic Romanian WASR-10s or some other semi-auto imports. Huge difference. Wait for this to be confirmed definitively, but until then, I wouldn't post it as fact.

A WASR-10 is pretty much a glorified hunting rifle that looks like an AK and can accept a larger magazine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Most semi-automatic AK-47 derivants sold in the USA as "assault rifles" are only a 5 minute nailfile work away from becoming a true machine gun, literally. Me think 90% of the buyers has this illegal thing done (for 10$ in some shady parts of LA).

anyone seen this? http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/ Anaraug 08:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could be a total fake. What would you need to blog from NO? Power (Possibly on, maybe a car battery, but not long) Dry Laptop (rare), Internet Access (cellphone service not so good right now, more power too)--mitrebox 14:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

yeah, could be fake, especially with the live webcam of what is clearly new orleans. i was assuming satelite internet, but who knows.Anaraug 15:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not fake. It's the DirectNIC datacenter, which has diesel generators, racks of dry servers on the 27th story of a building (which is in the central business district, which isn't flooded anyway), and enough redundant backbone feeds that some of them are still up. Also, a live webcam. An official press release confirms. --Delirium 16:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Mike's on the 10th floor of that building, actually. Nope, it's not a hoax. Yeoman work. I added that blog to the misc list.
--Baylink 00:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The first thing to remember is that most people (even media experts) don't know crap about guns (or much of everything else). They usually assume any rifle with wood is an ak-47. Most often these are SKS rifles that are semi-automatic. Although fully automatic mods are failry common to actually work they usually require a semi-professional and unscrupolous gunsmith and a few hundered dollars.--mitrebox 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would think that most people assume that anything w/ a curved magazine that even remotely looks like a rifle would be mistaken for an AK-47 by those who don't know what they're looking at. But in terms of FOX News, everyone should be carefull w/ anything they say. FOX News journalists are notorious for using "loaded" words and phrasing to make situations seem less/more serious than they are. In this case, the use of the term AK-47 could be construed as a loaded phrase because it makes the situation seem more like a war zone than other models of guns.

NO, the conversion is simple, but not sure that the Fox news report is accurate...probably hype. No doubt though that the number of shotguns, rifles and pistols is probably great...M16's and AK-47 would be relatively hard to come by so they're probably hyping it, or confusing similar looking weaponry.--MONGO 20:31, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

More than eight times this user vandalized this page. Somone should ban: User:218.57.243.52. --ThomasK 10:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that Baylink or Dream Guy could soon arrange this. They are the self styled Wiki Police. Anyway, ThomasK, well done for restoring the article. Leistung 11:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

You won't be happy until it has some mention of Europe and uses metric units. --CFIF 11:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

haha. Leistung 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

User:218.57.243.52, User:82.201.171.87 have vandalized this page more than a dozen in total. Please ban them. --ThomasK 13:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Report persistent vandalism at Wikipedia:vandalism in progress for swift attention. Rd232 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Structure

A lot of the Other Effects section should be in Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Some of the rest should be in Hurricane Katrina effects by region. And what's left could be merged with the previous section, which needs a better summary of those daughter articles. Rd232 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, Death toll (summary) is logically part of Effects too. Rd232 13:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Some newbies are creating sections, subsections, and even articles willy-nilly. Feel free to be bold in repairing poor factoring decisions. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Also feel free to discuss these issues on the Talk pages (rather than announce they exist), so that newbies like me can understand why these are poor factoring decisions. --Twigboy 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Political fallout

In my opinion, the story here ([24]) is likely to become huge in the next couple of weeks. One quote from the article: "At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars." I think, without being political, this angle should be covered on Wikipedia. --Rmalloy 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't overestimate the Iraq fiscal effect on those decisions - the several rounds of vast tax cuts had at least as much impact on the fiscal environment in which those kind of spending decisions were made. Rd232 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

And see also BBC: Papers hail heroes but blast Bush and my response to a point about Bush's reaction on Archive 05, including a link to an article from Popular Mechanics about this very problem, dated 2001. Since then the tanned, nonchalant Bush has made a speech, in which he read some figures from a piece of paper and grinned a lot. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting concerned about POV issues. The tone is really starting to shift to 'No-one could have predicted that a hurricane...' In fact the predictions were legion and they were ignored by governments. The only link to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans is the one I just added to See Also. Alan 14:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of troll feeding I'm going to take a shot at this one. This story will only be popular in "Liberal" Newspapers and media outlets. While it will probally spread to the House, no senator will even think about risking a backlash politizing this. Democrats will continue preaching to themselves and convince themselves the who nation is behind them on this. (Kind of the way they thought the country was with them right before the election.)--mitrebox 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

That's nice. What do your theories on politics have to do with the Wikipedia article? --Rmalloy 14:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

The point is that you're obviously trying to push this issue. Look, I don't like Bush either, but this isn't the place for your political advocacy. --Delirium 15:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mitrebox. I wish you wouldn't go on about trolls. It is highly divisive, and takes people' energy off the main points. Or are you trying to say that all "liberals" are "trolls"?? I think that wiki is wrong about the POV issue, as all historical events are POV. If 10 people see the same thing, there will probably be 10 different POVs. As far as political discussions are concerned, these are all important, as it demonstrates why decisions were made at the time. I hope you won't consider my statements "trollish". Leistung 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A wiki is a type of user-editable website. The Wikipedia is one example of such websites. These are not synonyms. Also, Neutral point of view is an official policy of Wikipedia dating back from its earliest days. If you're wishing to challenge that policy, you should at least know it, and know its history, before going on at length; we've heard all the objections before. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

As someone who worked as a sub contractor for the ACE, I wanted to chime in on this subject. Nearly every project the ACE proposes is designed to withstand a 25, 50 or 100 year event, depending on the population and economic importance of an area. A category 5 hurricane hitting New Orleans is a 500 year event (or a 1000 year even depending on who you ask). With that said, even if the current funding requests had been given, New Orleans would have only been protected up to a category 3 hurricane, no where near where it would have had to be to withstand Katrina. A 15 foot levee cannot stop a 22foot storm surge. Once water is on both sides of a levee it is only a matter of time before it gives. No levee will survive for more than a few hours if water is on both sides of it. Several of the levee sections that failed were completed just this year.

A proposal was floated to issue a study to upgrade NO’s levee systems in 2004 to withstand a cat 4/5, but completion of these studies, not to mention an actual project, are not going to be ready till 2008. Obviously this timeline will change.

Now I know the vast amount of knowledge in civil engineering contributors here have, but maybe we could all take a breather and wait till the thousands of dead bodies are buried before we try and push our partisan bullshit onto this article. TDC 21:14, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

There are already enough political ramifications of this event to justify a separate article. Already debates are brewing all over the internet (and spilling into the news media) about whether the government has spent too little protecting New Orleans from such an event; whether our resources are now too strained to deal with it effectively; and even whether our environmental policies affected the strength of the storm. -- BD2412 ^talk 21:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I've started an article on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Maximum Wind Speeds

I was just wondering if the maximum sustained winds for Hurricane Katrina were really 184 mph, because as I was watching the storm's entire track vigilantly and on the Weather Channel I remember them saying that the wind speeds had increased to 184 mph. Shortly after that was issued they decreased the maximum sustained wind speeds to 175 mph. Did anyone else see this, because it was listed here before as the maximum wind speeds? Was that a Weather Channel or NHC error or what?

None of the advisories [25] were >175mph, but since the advisories (at that time) were on 3 hour intervals, a 184mph speed may have been recorded between advisories. I haven't been able to source a 184mph reading yet ... still checking. --Twigboy 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How strange. TWC probably made a silly mistake when it recieved a reconnaisance vortex message around 17:55 UTC (1:55 EST) which reported 160 kt flight winds. This equates to exactly 184 mph. But the reason that this is wierd is because this windspeed wasn't reported until the NHC officially lowered the wind speed to 165 mph...maybe what you saw was one of TWC's occasional analyses of the recon reports. For those, TWC doesn't leave the windspeeds in kt (knots, which equal 1.15 miles) so it would have reported 184 mph windspeeds. Also, TWC doesn't normally report winds not in multiples of five....Gerardhelenaway 02:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It is weird because their advisories only come in multiples of five. I will contact the Weather Channel and the National Hurricane Center via email in a couple of days and see what they have to say. If the wind speeds were recorded as higher and they can give me confirmation that I can use to prove that the wind speeds were higher, then I will get back here as soon as possible and post my sources and findings. I will do the same thing for Super Typhoon Tip and some other powerful tropical cyclones, though I will probably need to contact the Joint Typhoon Warning Center for those super typhoons over the Western North Pacific Ocean.

Comparing Costs of Disasters (and events,products)

Please, when comparing the costs of one event/product/disaster to another, use an inflation calculator to accurately represent past or future (in a historical article) value. Already in this article is talk about beating Hurricane Andrew in "costs". This has been stated in the media and by officials. However, adjusted for inflation, Andrew cost ~36B in 2005 USD. People need to stop looking a money's value as a constant over time. It could be denoted as "Hurricane Andrew cost $36B USD|2005 ($26B USD|1999)" or something to that effect. It is the most accurate way of presenting the facts, rather than the most sensationalistic. 70.185.243.67 21:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

How do you compute the inflation-adjusted figure? --Vsion 21:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There are several inflation calculators on the Internet, here is the one I use: http://www.westegg.com/inflation . All calculations should be adjusted to 2005 dollars. (I haven't adjusted 2003 and 2004 storms yet due to insignificant differences) CrazyC83 00:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

External links

External links are way out of hand on this article. I would hope some of the people who've been working on this article are keeping an eye out and monitoring for linkspam, but there really do seem to be far too many links. Here's a radical suggestion: get rid of all of them. I don't mean the inline citations by the way - we need to cite sources, but useless blog posts and random news articles (thousands and thousands must have been written) really don't belong. People are perfectly able to search the web or take a look at a news site if they want more information. How about it? Or at least get rid of most of them and leave about five to ten important, imformative, and relevant sites. — Trilobite 22:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of all the blogs as per WP:NOT. Then go over the news links and delete outdated ones. --Titoxd 23:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I was BOLD and removed several of them (not all—I left the "Bringing resources together" blog). I misquoted the policy I'm following in the edit summary, though: my reasoning is WP:NOT 1.5.1, not 1.7.2. --Titoxd 23:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My perception of the informal policy on such issues on pages of popular current significance has been that such things were at least passably on-topic while the event *was* still of such current significance. Are they really *that* useless that we need to pull them at this moment? My personal opinion would be to err on the side of informativeness, for the short term, at least.
--Baylink 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but there is a point at which having too many links just overwhelms the reader and he/she doesn't click on any of them. Please check if the links are really useful before letting them on the article. Having a few links (preferably to official information) is better than doing a google search (which by the sheer volume of links, is what we're doing). --Titoxd 01:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It would also help to start breaking out sub-articles where practicable - some of these links are very specific to concepts that could stand alone in an article. -- BD2412 ^talk 02:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I've now started an article on Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, to which some links can be moved. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Tsunami

It's a little south-east asian tsunami.It's very sad!On the Tv we can believe that the images are from Haiti or Africa.Very sad! Gautier Bichard 23:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's the same idea. If it was a real tsunami though, the entire Gulf coast from the tip of Florida to the Yucatan, as well as much of the Caribbean and Central America, would have been affected. Thankfully, AFAIK, there are no fault lines below the Gulf of Mexico. CrazyC83 00:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The Atlantic has La Palma, though. ~~ N (t/c) 01:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Road Warrior Trilogy

Anyone see the aftermath in the Gulf Coast as the Mad Max/Road Warrior Trilogy?

Yeah. I have the temptation to go down there and start helping stranded people and killing the asshats who are shooting at rescue helicopters. :-P ~~ N (t/c) 00:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah also Waterworld partly. By the way how do you put your name at the end of each sentence?

~~~~ --Baylink 00:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

ok the superdome is Beyond Thunderdome--Mole Man 01:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Can Wikipedia help out?

Wikipedia is one of the few sites that might have the bandwidth available, software architecture and information management to assist the people in the Gulf Coast area. Wikipedia could set up a coordination wiki, where people can list the names of their family, report their current personal conditions, and allow, via a Search component, to quickly locate information. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia sites have been instrumental in their coverage of this calamity. I know that this is well outside the mission of WP, but is there any consideration among the Wikipedia "management" to offering some sort of additional resource to help with the rescue and recovery efforts? --NightMonkey 02:09, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good idea. Try asking Jimbo about this, he's the founder of Wikipedia, President of the Wikimedia Foundation, steward of meta-wiki and a whole bunch of other titles I can't remember. If a single guy can do it, he can. --Titoxd 02:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Exists already. ~~ N (t/c) 13:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Professional Sports

Why was the professional sports section taken out? if no one has a good reason, it should be put back in. Xunflash 02:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It was moved to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. --Titoxd 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

political and religious opportunism

Is there space for a (brief) section on the various commentators that have sought to turn a natural disaster into an opportunity to score points? I'm thinking of things like:

• Robert Kennedy: Katrina is revenge for U.S. not endorsing the Kyoto Treaty
• Kuwaiti Minister Muhammad Yousef Al-Mlaifi says Katrina is One of the Soldiers of Allah
• Repent America director Michael Marcavage claims Katrina caused by decadence
• Avner Bosky: Katrina and Gaza: is God speaking in New Orleans?
• The ever-entertaining Fred Phelps gives his explanation for Katrina.

There are sure to be others along.... Pat Robertson hasn't voiced an opinion on this particular hurricane yet... - Nunh-huh 02:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

So, Pat didn't control Katrina? Or is it just that he hasn't announced it yet? </sarcasm>. Maybe another article... let's try keeping this one NPOV --Titoxd 02:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think Pat probably Superglued his lips shut for a while. But they're mighty strong lips. - Nunh-huh 03:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's not much he can say, although it's surprising to me how Marcave and Phelps are focusing on homosexuals in New Orleans when a) the storm hit before they got there for the gay days, and b) ground zero for the eye was actually over Mississippi. Indeed, the storm basically blew through Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, and Ohio... -- BD2412 ^talk 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who attributes a hurricane to human action will simply pick out that which he hates most, and attribute the hurricane to that. It's not like there's some kind of requirement to be either accurate or logical! -Nunh-huh 03:35, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, well, unless the human action is emission of greenhouse gasses which actually physically make the Gulf of Mexico unusually warm. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. Elevating someone's guess about causation to a moral certainty is morally indefensible. -Nunh-huh 03:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

At least it is grounded in logic - temperatures are rising, we are contributing to it, and warmer waters do make stronger hurricanes. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and angels push the planets. -Nunh-huh 04:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't think comparing scientifically plausible (though by no means certain) effects of greenhouse gasses and global warming with ludicrous notions of angels moving planets (which isn't even a consideration of the most ardently religous peoples) is all that logical. Just my op. jcomp489

I have to say, I don't think the despicability of using natural disasters and human tragedy to score political points is ameliorated much by arguing scientific feasibility. Just my op. - Nunh-huh 15:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This might be appropriate on the political effects page. That page probably also needs a section on criticisms of the reponse and behavior of New Orleans citizens. Not only did they fail to heed evacuation orders and warnings, afterwards there was considerable looting, and up to 60% of police officers in some precincts have deserted.--Silverback 05:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

For the record, not everyone who didn't get out of the city simply didn't "heed" evacuation orders. It was previously estimated that as many as 100,000 households had no means of transportation, save public transit systems, and there was no attempt to provide public evacuation means to those people. The looting, well, for food & water it's understandable. For ipods and Nike's, well that's just absurd. And then the violence would be another thing to consider. But "criticisms of the behavoir of New Orleans citizens" is hard to write up without a LOT of speculation. It's not like every stranded person in the city is waving a Tech 9 at rescue helicopters. It only takes a small percentage of violent, armed people to cause widespread disruption in what is essentially a No Man's Land. jcomp489

There's a proposal above to put looting and so forth in a separate article on Social effects of Hurricane Katrina. I like that, as I'm not sure I would call it "political". -- BD2412 ^talk 05:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Looting is hardly a political topic. It is happening, and is a central theme. Leistung 07:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Jones Act

President Bush has temporarily waived the Jones Act to allow foreign oil companies to ship oil to the United States.

The link to the Jones Act goes to a disambiguation page, one entry regarding Puerto Rico and another regarding workmens comp. I presume that the Jones Act that this article refers to is a third option? --Bletch 03:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's the second one. At least, the text on that page seems to say so. I disambiguated the link. --timc | Talk 03:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A better casulties list

Can we get a proper death toll. A lot of people are using this page as information.

• The thing is, we are only as accurate as the sources we can find. We're looking all over the place for official casualty estimates, and we update them as we can find them. Sometimes, our sources contradict themselves, and we're stuck. After all, we don't have our own independent news agency, a la Associated Press or Reuters... hmm... that's an idea. :) --Titoxd 03:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Its that it said 335 killed indirectly then 335 killed directly on the bottom. Thats when i started to question the facts.

Then that's probably a typo. Where's that? I'll look into it and I'll try to fix it. --Titoxd 04:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious how they will classify those killed in the post-Katrina flooding, if they will be direct or indirect deaths? CrazyC83 04:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I would say direct, since flooding is one of the main effects of a hurricane, but then, that's just me. --Titoxd 05:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Break out Economic Effects

I suggest that we immediately break out the lengthy section on "Effects outside the affected region" (which is virtually all economic effects). -- BD2412 ^talk 04:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• If no one objects, I'm going to do this now, to reduce the article size. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • And it is done - see Economic effects of Hurricane Katrina. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Operation blessing?

I'm just wondering where and whether we should include this

• Nah. It's an exaggeration. The FEMA site is just linking all the recognized donation efforts that have been reported to the agency, and Sploid is twisting the whole thing. --Titoxd 05:42, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Still, it seems strange that it's linked before all other agencies but the Red Cross. All the other agencies are listed in alphabetical order. Especially since the website has since been changed seemingly in response to the story--130.95.128.51 05:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• I believe that does deserve coverage. Operation Blessing is run by the Robertson family - as in Pat Robertson. It is right there two clicks away from the FEMA home page. Many folks who see that list on FEMA's site (at http://www.fema.gov/press/2005/katrinadonations.shtm) will just give to any site listed there. So, Pat Robertson & Family will get a ton of cash that would arguably be better sent to more substantive and less contreversial organizations such as the Red Cross. And more media appear to be covering this... Here's a Bloomberg article, titled Bush Administration Charity List Dominated by Religious Groups --NightMonkey 21:18, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
• I should add that a simple Google News search reveals that the dissemination of the FEMA list is broad among major (and minor) media sites, as is the coverage of FEMA and Operation Blessing. So, long after FEMA decides to take Operation Blessing off the list, the "ripples" through the media-plex will still be pumping cash into the 700 Club. It is a shame that Big Religion politics is going to siphon away millions for the Robertsons, when so many people need help. But, more on topic, as this issue becomes more "noteable", I think it will have more merit for inclusion here. The Bloomberg coverage is a start. --NightMonkey 21:55, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

hurricane katrina

hurricane katrina is a stage 5 hurricane that hit the city of new orleans — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hockey2007333 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Please realize that talk-pages are WP: Notaforum though, and that the article already states that Katrina was a category 5 hurricane that affected the city of New Orleans.n🌀Weatherman27🏈 (chat with me!). 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Total lives: 1,863? Cf. Netherlands toll in 1953 North Sea flood

This number is the number of Dutch reported to be killed in the North Sea flood in 1953: E.g., ``The biggest disaster in recent history is the flooding in February 1953. Large parts of the Southwest of The Netherlands were flooded and 1,836 people died. Dutch Report p.248: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/climate/docs/Dutch_Perspective_on_LA.pdf

It isunlikely that both floods would have the same number in both these regions. Can you please confirm the source of that number in the New Orleans case? From what I can tell, the citations are either grey material or peer reviewed but don't state that number.

This appear to be a typo. The official number for Hurricane Katrina is 1,836. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Peak intensity image

I have noticed someone has changed the peak intensity image so I have reverted it to the original as the image before the revert I made was not peak intensity. The image was Katrina weakening as it approached Louisiana. but this happened along long time ago ±×− — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:6142:5E00:9D5B:2592:CAC6:A230 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2021

Dabdabad (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

In 2021 the damage of hurricane Katrina will be 169 Billion in 2021.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 13:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It was deadly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.86.3.70 (talk) 16:34, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2021

Hurricane Ida is nowhere near as costly as Katrina and Harvey, with only about $15 billion in damages. Please remove the section in the first paragraph stating that they are all tied. 71.41.254.202 (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2022

I have a better research and i am a news writer so please give me editing access 110.172.23.167 (talk) 07:58, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 08:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Gdoman1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rickythomas39, Gerry Moss.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bpeif.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Specifics

I think you should be more specific about the number of fatalities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asilber12 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

August 29

Today is hurricane Katrina’s 17 anniversary! 82.21.77.155 (talk) 13:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

Please add {{see also|Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Alabama}} to Hurricane Katrina#Southeast United States 69.118.232.58 (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done United States Man (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2022

Please update this article to reflect the cost of Hurricane Katrina adjusted for inflation. Hurricane Katrina, when adjusted for inflation, is the costliest hurricane in US history. Cost post inflation is important for understanding the economic impact of Hurricane Katrina in more contemporary times. Attached is a source from NOAA that should allow for the edits to be made. Thank you.

https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/dcmi.pdf BGeses (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2022

The article mentions Kanye West saying "George Bush doesn't care care about black people." The wikilink for black people goes to Black people; please change it to say black people but go to African Americans because this is more precise and the assumed meaning when Americans say "black people" unless the context implies otherwise.

35.1.255.235 (talk) 17:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. mossypiglet (talk) Go blue! 19:24, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

The article states "However, in February 2021, a severe winter storm struck the United States, causing at least $195 billion (2021 USD) in damage in Texas. It surpassed both Katrina and Harvey to become the single-costliest natural disaster recorded in the United States." This information is not aligned with current official understanding of American disaster costs; the February 2021 winter storm's official cost was 25.2 billion dollars, per https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/billions/events/US/1980-2022?disasters[]=all-disasters. Please delete this statement from the article. 128.84.125.27 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Hurricane Katrina

So scaryso so scary 64.127.82.225 (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2023

remove a ibtracs | ibtracs = 2005236N23285 now as wikidata 122.2.118.243 (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 12:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2023

At the end of the second paragraph in the introduction section the text reads "due of sovereign immunity." Please change "of" to "to" in order to fix this grammar issue. BUFWXpYJKaI (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on Aug 29 2023

The following statement is not accurate and should be removed: "However, in February 2021, a severe winter storm struck the United States, causing a major power failure in Houston, which caused at least $195 billion (2021 USD) in damage in Texas. It surpassed both Katrina and Harvey to become the single-costliest natural disaster recorded in the United States." The true cost of the 2021 disaster was 26.3 billion per https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/events/US/1980-2021 66.170.30.223 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect Category

The first paragraph in the article is misquoted. Katrina made landfall as a category 3 hurricane. After leaving Florida as a category 1, it strengthened to a category 5 out in the gulf, but weakened to a category 3 hurricane by the time it made landfall. The reference (#1) even states as such. The author incorrectly quoted the source information. Please refer to #1 reference report to verify this information. As stated in the report it states: "Katrina first caused fatalities and damage in southern Florida as a Category 1 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale. After reaching Category 5 intensity over the central Gulf of Mexico, Katrina weakened to Category 3 before making landfall on the northern Gulf coast."

Here is an additional link from USGS that also verifies this information:

https://eros.usgs.gov/media-gallery/earthshot/hurricane-katrina-new-orleans-louisiana-usa#:~:text=On%20August%2028%2C%202005%2C%20Katrina,(200%20kilometers)%20per%20hour. Dseip77 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

The death toll is written incorrectly

The "Total Fatalities" section of this article says "1,392", which is the updated, and currently correct number, while the intro to this article says "1,836", which was the old death toll prediction. I am not allowed to make this edit as it is locked to my account. I would appreciate it if someone could do it for me. TheOne01oneO (talk) 17:48, 19 October 2023 (UTC)