Talk:Timeline of Hurricane Katrina
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. |
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance within WikiProject Tropical cyclones. |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Interleaf hurricane and political timeline
Can I urge that we combine the two timelines in this page into one, so for each date we have a list of hurricane events followd by an indented list of political events. This would allow for a better juxtapositioning of information. It would also allow us to interleaf hurricane photos with political photos. --Tagishsimon (talk)
-
- I second this motion and recommend a re-name like The Katrina Disaster Timeline, to accomodate the fact that it is not only about the hurricane itself but also about the people affected and the political implications.
- Above posted by user 84.137.135.124
-
- I also think interleafing is essential because of the great temptation of people to insert political stuff in the top, non-political in the bottom, and the fact that some events are a bit of both.
- At least for the first few dates, it looks easier to make sure the top section has all the political section stuff. AlMac|(talk) 18:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Political is not just Bush
If demand continues to have what actually happened as opposed to the political dimension, then it ought to be renamed, because it is POV to focus on Bush without context of State & Local, and the responsibilities of some government agencies to act without waiting on commands from above.
- Perhaps the title could reflect other responsibilities of leadership, what's going on with them when this disaster unfolding, how high a relative priority they appear to be giving this. AlMac|(talk) 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Predictability of Levees at Risk
Currently the first section is about the Hurricane when it first formed, was seen coming, etc. Would it be appropriate to add a section in front of that about history that is relevant to disaster preparedness for the nation and the geographic area affected by Hurricane Katrina, such as Hurricane Pam and efforts to improve the levee system? AlMac|(talk) 18:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] helpful link
this link and its dated sublinks should be useful for this article's progress. Kingturtle 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- I also found this timeline which lists all that was *said* on press conferences, perhaps we could work that into the article Sp4rk33 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- Such timelines can help us find useful info, but then we should try to go to primary sources, in case of distortion at the secondary write-ups. Some government agenices publish what was said on THEIR web sites, which also would be good places to direct people who want to see more about what we might be summarizing that was new as of the time of the press conference. AlMac|(talk) 18:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
- I also found this timeline which lists all that was *said* on press conferences, perhaps we could work that into the article Sp4rk33 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Whitewash?
I noticed that the article seemed a bit lighter than when I last looked at it: Heres the diff. Seems to be some whitewashing regarding earlier dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina_timeline&diff=23231890&oldid=22893537 -St|eve 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline accuracy
Why is there an entry for Tuesday, August 30 at 1:30am which starts "CNN reports that the levee on the 17th Street Canal...suffered a two city-block wide breach."?
Shouldn't this more correctly be placed under Monday, August 29, since that is obviously when the breech occurred?
http://www.nola.com/hurricane/t-p/katrina.ssf?/hurricane/katrina/stories/083005catastrophic.html
What is more valuable in the timeline? When something actually occurred, or when it was reported by CNN?
Both can be given.
[edit] additional timeline
There is a time line here.
http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline
If history is this hard to record today, with the technology of video cameras, news media, other recording devices, cell phones, the internet.......
Imagine how hard it would have been even 20 years ago. Or 100.
Recorded History simply cannot truely be accurate. Too many people have a vested interest in the official story. We citizens need to act as local historians whenever important events fall in our lap. It should be our primary duty as citizens.
[edit] Todo
A timeline like this is nearly worthless without extensive references. — jdorje (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of numbers (almost 100) that I assume are references, but clicking on them gives me error messages.
- An additional (bigger) problem is the "Political timeline" which, at a glance, seems to be just half of the regular timeline taken out and put into a separate section. Did George Bush really authorize the NHC to upgrade Katrina to a hurricane? This section must be merged back in and the POV parts excised. — jdorje (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] new stork times
"This is a rubbish site"
new stork times
[edit] Article cleanup
The article has been cleaned up. Mainly checking & reformatting references, and combining the regular & political timelines into one, based on previous discussions on this talk page. Dr. Cash 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] A lot less useful
I have a printed copy of this topic from the end of January. I noticed that a lot of information, particularly with regard to "Aftermath" events on Tuesday, August 30 were removed. The resulting article is now a lot less useful.
Why was so much information, particularly from the day after landfall, purged from the article? Was it inaccurate? Or were there problems finding references?
For an August 30 timeline of events I find the Shreveport Time's timeline much more useful: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051211/NEWS01/512110314/1002/NEWS
