Talk:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hurricanes
 This page is within the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones, which collaborates on tropical cyclones and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones.

Contents

[edit] Attribution

An article was originally created at this title, but was later moved to Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina; however, much of the original content addressed matters unrelated to these criticisms. I have moved such material back to this title, leaving a separate article dealing solely with criticisms, per the title of the article following the move. The edit history of this article is now somewhat scattered between this article's pre-move edit history, the later article's edit history, and the edit history of sections that were originally moved to one or the other from the main Hurricane Katrina article. Welcome to Wikipedia. -- BD2412 talk 16:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of effects.

Given their closeness in time and location, it strikes me that it will soon become difficult to separate the respective economic, political, and social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. How would my fellow editors feel about moving the articles covering these aspects to Economic effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Political effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Social effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season? -- BD2412 talk 00:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of "Political effects of population displacement"

1) Most of the hyperlinks in this section are broken.
2) Editorials are not reliable sources of fact.
3) You cannot see into the future nor read the minds of evacuees, so I see no point in making unfounded speculation about electoral politics this early in the game.
4) What about the people who will have to fill the jobs once NO is running at 100% again? I haven't heard of any mass influx of conservative whites into the area, have you?
<BIAS>In fact, I've heard from relatives down there the complete opposite - that many hispanics are moving in to fill these jobs. Given the rather low wages, I doubt we will see this influx. And the idea of building McMansions in the heart of one of America's busiest ports is absurd. Yet the show must go on and NO is still the best location for import/exports and all points north on the mississippi. Given the rather negative view most hispanics take on the current issue-de-joure for the conservatives, "immigration reform", I wouldn't exactly count on their vote. You are also assuming that everyone in Louisana who voted for W in 2004 will vote the party line in 2006 and 2008. You are aware that not everyone voted for W because of moral/social issues, many (rightly or wrongly) found the conservatives more credible on the security issue. When polled now, post-Katrina, the majority have lost complete confidence in conservative government keeping them safe (of course the true believers still love him).</BIAS> So whatever your viewpoint, this section needs some definite NPOV/factual clean up and I'm way too biased to do it.--130.127.121.232 00:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Contract awards

1 - Someone should do research and clarification. Many of the contracts, namley Shaw's and the DOD contracts were Pre-qualified Federal Contracts, not NO-Bid Cost plus. That is completely wrong. Plus the ability to "miss use" federal funds in a cost plus environment is very difficult under Sarbanes-Oxley legilation. The cost plus is an Itemized bill with multiple auditors.

2 - The awards went to Haliburton, Brown and Root, Fluor, Shaw, and Bechtel. That a who's who of major American EPC Contractors with the skill & resources to do the scope and scale of hurricane relief. Plus Shaw is based in Baton Rouge, no one could respond faster.

  • Political effects are more often about perception. BD2412 T 16:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linkspam removed

I've removed the katrina coverage page from the external links section of this article. (a) the site is a blog and (b) the most recent entry on the blog dates back to March 20, 2006, so it's no even current. The link also was added with a description to, "over 1000 heavily -tagged [1] posts on the politics of the disaster." But when I bring up this so-called tags page, every one of their 'tags' results in a '404 not found'. Dr. Cash 16:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

1. I'd suggest being careful about calling something "linkspam".
2. The 404 issue was a temporary problem which has been corrected.
3. KC was in the External Links section from October 4, 2005 until the external links were "cleaned up" by Dr. Cash on April 14, 2006.
4. KC was on one of the other Katrina pages before October.
5. Whether it's currently being updated is immaterial. It has over 1000 posts on the topic categorized by over 400 tags and more raw data and original source material than all WP Katrina entries combined. And, I've cached much of the material which I only quoted at the site; my cache folder is 123 Megs, and I might be putting that online at some point.
For a tangible example, I don't find anything in the entry about Henry Waxman. Yet, at that tag you'll find three posts concerning his response, including an excerpt from a letter he sent. Nothing about that here.
Maybe you should use the site as a resource instead of deleting the link. LonewackoDotCom
Sorry, I still don't accept these reasons. The site is nothing more than a blog. It is worthless as a resource on this topic. Dr. Cash 07:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest that the reader look around the site and make up their own mind. Anyone else have any comments?
I'm not sure who left the above unsigned comment, but it should also be pointed out the site in question also contains many copyright violations ... most of it's 'blog entries' were in fact, lifted from other sources, such as the Washington Post & AP. This is unacceptable and wikipedia should not accept copyright infringement and plagiarism like this. Most of the blog entries have very few comments associated with it, as well. Therefore, I highly doubt that this site is even remotely notable as it is. Furthermore, anything even remotely connected to the lonewacko blog ought to be taken with a HUGE grain of salt,... Dr. Cash 02:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm already dealing with this issue through Wikipedia and I don't want to escalate the issue here. However, it needs to be pointed out that:
1. KC abides by all relevant copyright laws.
2. The charge of plagiarism is completely false.
I demand a retraction of those statements. I also suggest that Dr. Cash contacts legal counsel regarding his statements above as well as before making any future statements. User:LonewackoDotCom

Don't make legal threats, that is strongly discouraged.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my original accusations of plagarism were a bit off. Looking at the site in further detail, I don't see blatant copying of material from published sources. That being said, I don't appreciate your legal threats. I still stand behind my decision to remove 'katrinacoverage.com' from the external links section of this page, however. If this site is so important, and has such great information on hurricane katrina, then why has (a) the site not been updated since March, 2005, and (b) does the site have next to zero responses posted to it's articles by users/visitors. In fact, it appears to me that the site has dwindled to very little traffic in the past six months, and those that run the site are attempting to stir up traffic by adding more links to their site, especially considering the one-year anniversary of Katrina is right around the corner. Let's face reality; katrinacoverage.com is virtually dead. Don't try and resurrect it and just let it go,...
It should also be pointed out that you are in violation of WP:EL by adding a link to your own site (a site that you own/maintain). Dr. Cash 18:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've read the debate on this page but for the sake of completion can both parties concerned please restate their opinions here. This way, we can end the mediation case quickly. Thanks. Jsw663 04:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. I don't have time for this shiat, so I've put the link back. There's really only 3 links on the page anyway, so it's not like we have a problem with linkspam to begin with. Still think the site is really pushing the boundaries of notability, but who cares? Dr. Cash 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Please can the parties concern review the following section concerning reliable sources: [2]. According to that, the Katrina website would be of dubious credibility as it would come under the "Bulletin boards" section. This is not only because of the nature of the site itself, but also because the poster is also the webmaster of the site, and does NOT come under the exception to the Bulletin Boards rule (ie not an expert in the field). I would thus recommend the link be removed. If any party is still dissatisfied they can always appeal to an administrator, although I would advise parties only to resort to this if they think a GRAVE injustice has been committed, as administrators only have a limited amount of time to deal with their huge volume of cases. Jsw663 05:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/o/l/Talk%7EPolitical_effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_7b25.html"