Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Size of devastated area

Currently, the intro says, "extensive and severe damage over 90,000 square miles of the southeastern United States (an area equivalent to Great Britain)." It seems to me that someone's using a generous estimate. Of course there's damage at least as far north as the Ohio valley, but isn't the area of interest along the Gulf coast? It's 150 miles from New Orleans to Mobile, so say ~200 miles by ~50 ~= 10,000 mi.², about the area of Belgium.
—wwoods 06:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The damaged area stretches far beyond New Orleans and Mobile. Check the map in the article of the extent of hurricane and tropical storm force winds. Whether this totals near 90,000, I don't know but that is what the networks are reporting. Rmhermen 13:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The area of hurricane force winds and/or high storm surge should be used as the area of "devastation". The area of tropical storm force winds and/or heavy rains should only be used as the area "affected". CrazyC83 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
According to this AP article, 90,000 mi2 is the total area under federal disaster declarations. Rmhermen 14:50, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
The Alabama and Mississippi estimates make sense (if anything, especially in Alabama, the area devastated was somewhat larger than that). However, the entire state of Louisiana was declared a disaster area - the northern and western parts of the state north of I-20 as well as west of I-49 (i.e. Shreveport, Lake Charles, Alexandria) were hardly affected at all (only minor damage)...while that is only a small portion of the population (about 20%), it is nearly half the land area... CrazyC83 15:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Aftermath

I did add a paragraph on the aftermath in the main section. In it I mentioned three topics, flooding, looting and risk of disease. However, risk of disease has now disappeared, and the widespread looting been downgraded to "lawlessness". I believe that disease threats and looting are central issues to this article, which should be honest, and reflect things as they really were. So we should not alter wording so that it becomes "nicer" and at the same time more vague. People could read the article in future, and think, well things weren't that bad... In the 1906 San Franscisco Earthquake, there was also widespead looting, and this was a central theme in Encylopedias and Headlines written immediately after the event. Flooding nearly always causes risk of disease, and I also included a reference mentioning the "tepid water".

These comments do not mean that I don't want it edited. the primary intention was to introduce the idea of aftermath, and that others could add/improve. However, before things are removed, there should be a good reason. I or someone esle might like add them back some time, if it fits in with the current version. Leistung 06:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Looting is completely irrelevant to the rescue effort and is mostly an annoying and racist color story for the sensationalist news media, IMO. Joe Blow running off with a TV isn't stopping the cops from pulling Mary Jo out of her attic in the nick of time, violent offenders are the ones doing that. Looting is so annoyingly overblown in this case that my institutional racism alarms are going off left and right. HOWEVER, disease is a critical issue and I am flabberghasted that someone would remove that, even if the writing was imperfect. More people will die from disease after the initial flooding than from anything else. Why they are not dropping leaflets warning of contaminated water, I don't know. Hundreds if not thousands will die from drinking bilge. DO NOT ERASE DISEASE.
    • Lotting is very important, because US looters are always armed and they fire at every helicopter and motorboat in sight, because they think every such vehicle is a police or NG unit. This already halted rescue efforts many places because of hit danger. Also, looters (mass shoplifters) soon turned into armed robbers, who force people at gunpoint to hand over valuables and they are moving nearer to densely populated areas. That's why 1500 policeman had to abandon rescue and fight the gangs. But CNN says many cops are deserting!
    • Looters have already been reported by CNN to become mass rapists. They are kinapping teenage girls for gang banging! I think Apache and Cobras should circle overhead just like in Iraq and chaingun any looters into 1" pieces. Damn the ban on armed police helicopters, when the very texture of US society is ripping wide open right now! This s not Rodney King 2nd edition, it is already a war to preserve the north-south territorial integrity of USA. If the feds cannot rule the situation soon, there will be a Confederation by 2010.

195.70.48.242 09:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The three points I made were threat of contagious disease, widespread looting, and stranding, none of which are necessarily connected. I mentioned threat of disease only, as it is early days, and that disease could become an actuality and bigger than the other two points, as events move on. Unfortunately someone removed the disease bit, and then undue importance was placed upon looting, with stranding an aside, which was not intended by me.
I agree with your point that some media outlets like to put a slant, such as racism on the looting aspect. This is clearly wrong. But the fact remains that looting is going on, and some of the side effect, mentioned immediately above, are sinister. I also agree with you that the rescue effort should go on regardless of the looters, and the two are not greatly connected. But all of these things, why they happen, whos involved, how events transpired, are all encyclopedic material. There are also lessons for the future... Leistung 09:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing Persons Standardization

As a quite standard internet resource in itself I believe Wikipedia should somehow help to STANDARDIZE the missing persons effort. I myself am looking for a missing relative and the websites are just far too numerous and disparate. I have no idea where to look. One would think the major media outlets would be it...this is no time for a flood of decoys and an outpouring of chaos.

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina

I suggest a companion Timeline of Hurricane Katrina, that can consist of a datestamped series of events to help in structuring/ordering the other more narrative-oriented articles, much like: Timeline of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. It would consist of the hurricane landfall dates, the exact time of breech of levees etc., the time of various news conferences (e.g. Bush's announcements) so that events can be synchronized. This would enable the more prose-oriented articles to concentrate on the context/overview. Lexor|Talk 08:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia version of this article has a nice chronology, see fr:Ouragan_Katrina. Lexor|Talk 09:02, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Civil War?

- CNN now says explicitly it's not looting, nor unrest, it is "urban warfare". The use of iraq war veteran NG troops and people shooting at helicopters, when can you say it is a civil war or a mutiny or even a revolution?

When it is an organized movement with the aim of overtoppling the gouvernment. A mob does not make a revolution.--Stephan Schulz 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

- Why doesn't Fidel Castro act? It would be the best time to attack and oust the US colony from Guantanamo Bay to restore cuban territorial integrity.

Because he is not an idiot. Guantanamo as a piece of soil is mostly worthless to him. Guantanamo as a source of propaganda is useful. Getting Guantanamo back amidst negative publicity is worth than useless for him. Moreover, the US is not seriously weakened by Katrina, so there is not reason to assume he would be successful. (None of the above should be constructed to believe that I believe the lease of Guantanamo is legal or that the Gulag on Guantanamo is not an insult to both humanity and law).--Stephan Schulz 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Fidel Castro in fact acted and offered doctors and medicines. Mardus 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

- Why doesn't UBL act? A big terror event would be even more effective amid the turmoil of this hurricane. The Kaida sure must have some plans on how to further exploit natural disasters for their jihad. Osama is not the person who misses opportunities and I don't suppose he shuts down the terror factory just because of emphaty and lament.

Allah forgot to include the item in his schedule the last time (they only meet every 4 months or so in person), and thus he was unprepared. Sheesh! --Stephan Schulz 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Der Spiegel

Big name german leftist newspaper Der Speigel writes Katrina will be Bush Jr.'s nemesis, just like the Andrew ousted Bush Sr. German press says the US National Guard being in Iraq not at home as supposed to be is the undeniable cause of this huge human disaster and the money meant for dams was spent on the iraq war, plus the sin of arrogance against Kyoto. German journalists write Bush Jr. will not be able to repeat his 0911 performance this time and popular outrage in the south may force him to step down mid-term, like Nixon.

Do you have a specific source? I scanned the Spiegel Website, and found a lot of articles on Katrina, but none similar to what you wrote. The closest is an editorial by former Clinton advisor Sidney Blumenthal, and even that does not come close. --Stephan Schulz 10:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Der Spiegel, Ron Fournier: "People will be asking questions" at "http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,372518,00.html"
Well, let's say the above summary is extremely free. Note that nearly all the things alluded to are quotes from US papers and commentators, and that Kyoto is not mentioned at all. Moreover, this is an international AP wire service message reprinted as is, not a proper Spiegel article. So talking about German journalists is doubly misleading.--Stephan Schulz 12:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

You too

The federal government is so clueless about the situation, that they are flying U2 spyplanes over the area to make high-res footage. The planes were reported seen by bloggers and confirmed by CNN. Of course it will take days to evaluate the aerial reconnaisance and that will be too late many will die meanwhile.

Friday September 2 water cooler talk around the nation was livid is my call.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The Lockheed U-2 Flies at around 70,000 ft, roughly twice the altitude of commercial jets while considerably smaller in size and profile. Even if these bloggers were looking for it (and knew when and where to look), they would likely need binoculars to both pick it out and identify it as a U-2. Unless the bloggers in question were part of the flight or ground crew of a U-2 ordered to reconnoiter the Mississippi Delta, I'd personally prefer to wait until I see this CNN confirmation you mention.David Iwancio 24.110.195.131 17:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Most affected groups

It should be noted somewhere in the article that those most affected, stranded and dying are poor people of color, the sick and the elderly as those groups didn’t not have the means or ability to evacuate before the storm hit. [1]

Added to "effect" section--Fluxaviator 12:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to be anyone in this situation. Tourists cannot get out. Also the so called middle class are not working, and having to stay with families and pets in other cities, and going through their savings very fast. I hope everyone is insured! It is not fun for anyone. Leistung 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think there's many people who are going to be formerly middle class within weeks. BTW, has anyone heard that hotels in Tallahassee are planning on kicking out refugees to make way for the FSU-Miami football game? [2] --YoungFreud 13:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

We have let you stay for free for the last two days, but you have to go now, Go where? I have no where to go. Here is a list of local homeless shelters. Homeless shelter? I'm not a no good bum! Look. Go where you want, You can't stay here without paying. But I'm a tax paying citizen! IT'S NOT MY FAULT!! That's what the homeless shelters are for. People just like you. But I thought they were only for the bums. WAS 4.250 16:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The thing is with the hotel evacuees, they are paying customers. It's that the hotels apparently want to honor their reservations, even in light of this tragedy.--YoungFreud 17:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

If they have money for a HOTEL bill, and they want to stay LONGER (as in INDEFINITE), then it is high time they rent by the MONTH in a nonhotel (where the cost is FAR less). The hotel is doing them a favor. Payment for hotels is usually at the END of the stay, so if a hotel customer is complaining about not being able to stay longer, I'm doubtful (as perhaps is the hotel) of their ability to pay not so much the bill so far but the eventual bill at the end of this INDEFINITE stay. Paying up front works wonders. I bet they didn't offer to do that. 4.250.168.203 23:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Most hotels require a credit card upfront for the room. While you "pay" at the end in that that is when your card is charged, if you skip town, they're still going to charge the card they have on file. If they can't pay the bill that is the credit card company's problem and not the hotels. Peyna 23:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Cited by BBC

The BBC have cited this article here. (Sorry, I don't recall the correct template to use for this; please feel free to delete this comment when it's been added.) Andy Mabbett 13:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I followed your link and I didn't see a citation there. I did see the article listed under "RELATED INTERNET LINKS", but I'm not sure if that qualifies. --timc | Talk 14:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Danger to the Public

Where has the section on looting etc and the generally dangerous conditions gone? This subject is gaining more attention than anything else worldwide, and is also concerning the US authorities. This is not just sensationalism, as tourists from all over the world are experiencing the terror, let alone the locals. I think some would think that such articles are an attack on the US. But this is not so. Most decent people are sympathetic, and realise this is just human nature, and poople are desperate.

There is an awful of lot of mention of irrelevancies such as the deployment of individudal naval vessels, military units and oil rigs. In 100 years, no one will care much about what ship was where on the 2nd Septmeber, 2005. They will sure care about how the poor people or New Orleans felt, and the danger they went though. Leistung 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

See Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. FreplySpang (talk) 13:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia can cover all of the things you mention. Where the ships are going doesn't have to displace how the people are doing. ~~ N (t/c) 14:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Who cut the stream table without discussion?

I put over an hour into refactoring that last night. It would have been *nice* not to cut it without at least discussing it.
--Baylink 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

All but one of the streams is dead, and the working one isn't even discussing the hurricane! If you'd bothered to look at the edit history you would have seen I stated this in the summary that removed it. I put a lot of work into trimming the externals and I specified why each single one was removed.... and if it really took you an hour, consider it time well invested in learning how to use wikipedia tables. I would have expected with that level of time investment you would have actually checked to see if they were still relevant! 24.165.233.150 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I did check; they are working; they are relevant; and your snotty (and incorrect) comments about "IP only posters" (I am clearly not IP only, and I've been doing this for over a year) aren't well taken. I am, once again, putting it back in; I'll thank you to take it up with an administrator before feeling the need to cut it again, because if you don't, I will. Oh, and sign up.
--Baylink 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Baylink, you've violated 3RR on this article inserting your externals several times. I wasn't refering to edits made by your account, but rather edits made by the open proxy at: User_talk:83.197.66.79. I presume this wasn't you. The links don't actually work, though I see you changed one of them so I'll check them again. I really don't appricate your commanding and agressive attitude. 24.165.233.150 18:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, 'commanding and aggressive' are words I might have used to characterise your approach, as well, but I believe we've agreed to disagree on this, for now. If other users have opinions either way, no doubt they'll chime in here. And that comment your roommate thought was inappropriate ought to clearly illuminate that I was trying to be neither commanding, nor aggressive. I was just trying to make my contribution to helping clean up the *real* mess (as opposed to the one here), in the small way I could.
--Baylink 21:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The objection to the comment, as I understand it, was that you were implying to other users that they were not permited to edit your text. That isn't the wikiway and it isn't needed. As you can see, I've left your work alone for now. I'm glad that you took the time in IRC to explain your position, even though I still don't agree with it. --24.165.233.150 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Criticism

Can this section be cleaned up? There's a lot of passive phrasing that avoids attribution and implies POV: "Criticism of governmental response has grown", "Questions have been raised", "Another major criticism is that", "There are also major concerns". Who is raising the questions, criticizing the response, having major concerns? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.230.38.115 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree jcomp489

I can answer that: *the network news anchors* are doing it. In editorial form, not as quotes.
--Baylink 15:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Someone credit Anderson Cooper if they haven't already. I've heard many things about what he said on the air the other night. Mike H (Talking is hot) 15:51, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Mayor Nagin, New Orleans police officers, the Army Corps of Engineers, the heads of all NOLA hospitals, NGO disaster relief, the victims. Do you want me to continue, because I haven't even started going into the news media? --YoungFreud 16:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, then attribute them properly. The phrases currently used constitute weasel words. Peyna 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Another note on this section, the phrase "(3,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard's 256th Brigade are currently on a tour of duty in Iraq)" seems a little POV. It is obviously there to suggest that if they weren't currently in Iraq, the situation in New Orleans would be different; the chain of inferences from there is endless. The fact that this paranthetical has the possibility to lead a number of readers down that path makes its inclusion questionable at best. Peyna 22:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Disagree strongly. The statement (3,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard's 256th Brigade are currently on a tour of duty in Iraq) is a fact. Not POV. Also there have been many articles in major papers criticizing the fact that Louisiana National Guard is not there to help at full strength, That is a fact, They are in Iraq. That also is a fact. The statement does not make a judgment on if they should be in Iraq or not. National Guard now have to be moved into the state from around the rest of the US which will take time, not to mention that they will be unfamiliar with New Orleans when they get there. These are facts not judgments. [3] --Fluxaviator 23:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Facts are not inherently NPOV. The inclusion of that phrase (in its current form) could possibly insinuate many POV things. POV is about perception just as much as it is about the truth. Peyna 00:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The section is called Criticism. This is a place for stated and sourced critics from media reports around the US and the World. That is what this section is intended to be used for and that is what I see happening. You or I may not agree with a given criticism, but that is beside the point. Wikipedians should not be stating their personal opinions, they should be stating and sourcing statements made by critics, politicians or reporters. Therefore this article should not state that these criticisms are fact, but only that such and such a person at such and such an organizations stated a given criticism. NPOV does not mean no point of view, it means neutral point of view, very often the way to archive that is by having a criticism section where alternative points of view are mentioned.--Fluxaviator 01:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Should the criticism section be divided into some subsections? -- As I have difficulty fixing punctuation and typing mistakes due to considerable editing traffic. Also, that section surpasses the 56Kb threshold. Mardus 04:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We need to move these unnecessarily contentious statements out of the main article and into the political/social daughter articles. People reading this article don't want this heated political debate thrown at them. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 04:31, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Clarification: I didn't mean to say there should be no mention of political controversies about the response to Katrina in the main article. It should be trimmed down significantly, though; as it is, that section is long enough for a full article. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c, +m ] 05:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the trimming down part. For example, a reference to a full criticism article and then abridged content in the main article. My idea for subsection titles of the section would be, in chronological order, perhaps: "Poor prevention funding", "Inadequate response from officials before the damage" (no free transport to evacuate the people who couldn't afford to leave), "Slow response from (law and order) officials after" (some of that is attributed to a considerable amount of the Louisiana National Guard members not being at full strength due to being on duty in Iraq); see above criticism comments), then resulting "Lawlessness, which followed by overzealous looting (non-essential materials stolen) and rape" or something similar. These sentences could be used to summarise criticisms.
-- Mardus 05:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
- The Criticism section already contains points from both Political effects of Hurricane Katrina and Social effects of Hurricane Katrina and these two articles, judging by their titles and anticipated content /some of that already seen in the section, seem to have considerable overlap. I was entertaining the idea their merger, but if they are already too large on their own, they could be cross-referenced, if need be. Mardus 04:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Race issues

Some of the original text about city officials being accused of racism:

This has lead to calls of racism from city officials...

My initial unsaved change was this:

This has lead to accusations of racism on the part of city officials..."

And then I wasn't sure whether my correction considerably improved the language. The final wording was this:

This has led to city officials being accused of racism,..."

-- Mardus 07:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Area affected?

ABC news reported the area of damage was 90,000 square miles. This sounded high to me, but I added it in, hoping maybe someone would confirm with another source.

I checked to day and someone had changed it to 180,000 square miles, which I know can't be right. That would be the UK times two!

I would love for someone to find another source on this.

What is the amount of area that sustained major damage?

Using a liberal calculation of going 150 miles inland by 400 miles wide computes to 60,000 square miles. I guess you have to add south Florida, but how big of an area there sustained major damage?

60k seems at the high end of what must be right, 90k extremely liberal, and 180k just way off.

I think originally it was set to 90k, incidentally, by the same person who removed the Criticism section. I hadn't changed it back because I thought this was new information and then the metric measurement was changed, lending more credibility.--YoungFreud 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
It's inappropriate to use the term "major damage" or "area of damage". The Federal Disaster Declarations cover an area 90,000 sq. mi., but that covers two levels of federal assistance being made available, rather than any expert assessment of the scope of the storm. In all counties, public entities such as police and fire departments can apply for federal monies to defray any extra-budget costs they incur. In a select number of counties, though, individuals and businesses can also apply. It is these counties that sustained "major damage" and they are a much smaller area. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The figure comes directly from the White House, so it has an official source. [4] --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary getting too big

I rearranged some text cosmetically, but left the wording unchanged. The Summary should be small and not go into any detail. Moved the text related to the Superdome down to a new Section called "Second Evacuation" to cover events after the Storm. However, some mention of the Superdome should be made in the Summary, as it is important part of the overall event. Leistung 18:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Privatization of Hurricane Management

It's looking like FEMA had a private company called Innovative Emergency Management, or IEM, develop a "Catastrophic Hurricane Disaster Plan" for dealing with this crisis. You can read they're June 2004 press release here [5]. They were apparently very proud of this fact as it was displayed on their main page [6], [7]. I'm having to use Wayback Machine links, because apparently IEM are now trying to cover this fact up. [8]. Screenshots of the original press release page[9] and after it was edited on Sept. 2nd[10] --YoungFreud 19:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, your screenshots are inaccessible, but I can't see what's significant about this. They were hired to develop a plan, but was it ever completed? At this point, it's obviously moot. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
The plan was conducted in exercises in 2004, know as the Hurricane Pam exercise[11]. They basically conclude that Louisiana is now "much better prepared for a catastrophic hurricane". [12]. Of course, Hurricane Pam was a Cat 3 storm. --YoungFreud 20:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, YoungFreud, I believe it was in the monies cut earlier this year [13], which included a "study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane" which "has been shelved for now". I believe the study being shelved is why IEM removed the press release from their site, not any great "cover up" as you suspected. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
That's the problem there. ALL such exercises should be for a Category 5 storm, at the level of Hurricane Gilbert (190 mph/305 km/h) or higher. Even in areas where such is unlikely (i.e. the northeast US), they shouldn't be catching themselves off guard in case that extreme event happens. CrazyC83 21:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
CrazyC83: Hindsight is 20/20. They probably should not have cut these funds, but then they should have been planning for a Category 5 -- at least as a worst-case scenario -- years and years ago, an oversight that is not attributable to any one administration or government entity. And the flip side is that that costs money, which is in competition with other policy needs. Regardless, please keep your comments on focus toward improving the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

1000 confired dead in biloxi

Is that true. It in this artilce and what is the source. Thats a huge development.

Last I heard, it was just over 150 in Harrison County. Considering the population of Biloxi is 50,000 that number seems really high... CrazyC83 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Biloxi was probably worst affected by the winds. At least judging by the satellite images.

It might be 1,000 missing. Some of the missing might likely evacuated and no one reported it to the media or authorities... CrazyC83 20:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
A lot of NOLA folks couldn't evacuate beyond Biloxi, so it's hard to say. 128.200.54.31 20:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Not true that it is confirmed. It may be true, but it isn't confirmed. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Price gouging vs. hiking

Not sure how price gouging violates NPOV, as it has legal basis as a felony. Authorities are investigating complaints of price gouging. Price hiking implies a sharp raise in prices (which legitimately exists nationwide), but there are documented cases of unlawful price hiking, which by definition is gouging. --Twigboy 19:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Despite the existence of actual laws about it, the definition is still rather vague and subjective; lately, gasoline has increased quite a bit in price, but at exactly what point does it become "gouging"? *Dan* 20:31, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Right, even though there is a crime described around it.. it would only be fair of us to call a specific act gouging if there has been a conviction. Price hiking is accurate and includes everything we are talking about.. sudden price increases which may or may not be criminal. Which is also why I left the link in the text to price gouging.. 24.165.233.150 20:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

MSNBC box/Storm development blank area

PLEASE do not move text and pictures around in the Storm Development section. It throws everything off kilter.


Is it copyright protected to use a graphic from a media source? Using a headshot or screenshot might fly, but media outlets are pretty particular about their own graphics. Also, the placement on the page is terrible, a picture insert needs space around it. Also, someone did a very sloppy job with the white space to the left of the box, several lines are blank. As well, the removal of existing picture content without discussion was not appreciated.Kyle Andrew Brown

  • The graphic itself would be copyrighted, so we would have to assert fair use, and go down the list of factors - purpose is educational (a point for us); type of work is creative (point for them because we could come up with our own graphic); portion used depends on what context the graphic was taken from, but is probably a point for them; effect on the market probably is a point for them as well. I'd say we shouldn't use graphics from other media sources. -- BD2412 talk 21:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
I managed to get rid of the blank area in Storm development, but now it returns. Can't find the code error.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Social effects of Hurricane Katrina

I've started the article on Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, but it's very raw at the moment. -- BD2412 talk 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


Why were the links to 'survivor' sites removed? This isn't spamming, it's a number of us trying very hard to help people. That's just plain BS.--208.254.52.112 21:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It's clear folks with no understanding of the work it takes editors to prepare and post content are lurking here. They do not know that it takes consensus to remove and delete material. It's unfortunate.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Moreover, some of us busted our asses to get those sites up. Yes, mine was listed. No, I'm not taking it personally... but there is a community of folks who are trying to help that are being stepped on by overzealous editors. Is it encyclopedic? Maybe not. Perhaps we can loosen the standards when lives are at stake, eh folks? --El-Spectre 09:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

President Bush's Reaction

User Kbk keeps deleting this quote from President Bush:

I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will. — President George W. Bush ([14]).

The comments KbK has left upon deletion has been:

rm quote. It's not a prediction, and isn't even correct, since overtopping the levees was a major concern to officials in the area.)
I hope people don't play politics during this period of time," [Bush] said.

The quote is accurate as sourced and demonstrates President Bush's understanding and preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Just because the President's remarks conflict with officials concerns, doesn't change its correctness.


hmm, well, the quote is accurate, it is, however, awkward just sitting in the middle of text. Without placement context it is vulnerable to many issues, both editorially and politically. The record appears to show that the Bush Administration removed the former Congressman who headed the Army Corps of Engineers who fought for funding to upgrade the levees, the record does show the Administration cut the budget this year for spending on the levees. So on that basis, for a government official to say "noone expected the levees to breech" is kinda lame.
I do not believe KbK is being at all malicious here, however, the placement and context needs to be work shopped in MHO.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Bush's announcement of a state of emergency and the qualifier "two days before landfall" appears twice in the text. Overeager?

Anon? What are you talking about?Kyle Andrew Brown 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Global Warming

This article needs to mention global warming.

Global warming is discussed in the article on global warming, in the article on hurricanes (linked from this article), and in the article on the recent hurricane season. There is nothing special with Katrina related to global warming outside of some misplaced media hype. Linking global warming from this article would not be appropriate. --24.165.233.150 23:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
This article absolutely SHOULD mention global warming as it has been scientifically proven that the raise in surface temperatures caused Katrina to go from a tropical storm to a devastating hurricane in record time as it crossed the short distance between south Florida and New Orleans. Besides that the media have been talking about the issue in relation to Katrina which is reason enough to mention it. "There's no question that the warm waters of the Gulf provided the heat that turned Katrina into a major storm," said Ross Gelbspan, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author of two books on global warming. [15]--Fluxaviator 23:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
But the Gulf would be warm anyway. I'm sure the exact extent of the effect GW has had is disputed. ~~ N (t/c) 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

People that don't want to discuss global warming here should leave the Wikipedia and stop editing -- they obviously don't understand NPOV. Nobody cares whether your personal beliefs are that global warming is not the cause; what matters is that 'respectable' sources have made this contention with respect to THIS storm, and as part of an un-biased article, it must be mentioned here. Lilath

But only if you mention that 'respectable' sources have also made the opposite contention. What's the point? --timc | Talk 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I challenge you to name a single respectiable source that said anything specifically about Katrina. Time published an article which mentioned katrina in the headline and in the footer (the footer was just saying in the future we could see storms worse than katrina) the rest was some generic talk about warming causing more powerful storms. Thus the material does not belong in Katrina 24.165.233.150 03:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Fluxviator. The connection between global warming and hurricane strength is adequately made elsewhere. It may merit a passing mention here with links to those articles. The Gulf of Mexico has always been warm and has always fueled storms. There is no indication that Katrina experienced a different global warming effect than Dennis (05), Ivan (04), Frances (04), Opal (95), Andrew (92), Frederic (79), Camille (69), or Betsy (65). Specific media attention to global warming that pushes certian policies may find a place at Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. Dystopos 17:40, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional imagery of Katrina

Perhaps the imagery in the article could be complimented (replaced?) with imagery such as these:

http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Current/TRCkatrina240_N5.jpg http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Current/TRCkatrina241_N5.jpg http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0508/katrina_goes12_big.jpg

All of the above images are in the public domain, with the caveat that we give credit. Earthsound 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The image look like the require a great deal of size to show what they want to show, and there is a problem putting them directly on the article page. Also, for the most part readers know where the storm struck. For sure they can go as external links.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Fradulant charities?

So, I noticed someone keeps readding and moving to near the top the external link to [16]. The site claims to be a charatable nonprof operated by a student group at Tulane called CACTUS. But the student group page doesn't make any mention of the person's name who is on the DNS contact information. The phone number attached goes unanswered. And nothing on the CACTUS page seems to imply that they are normally in the bussiness of collecting money or that they even have charatable nonprof tax status. ... I hate to be suspicious, but there is really nothing to back up the claims made by the site... and after the huge amount of fraud that happened with tsunami donations, I think it is reasonable to cast a critical eye on these things. Can someone else tell me what they think? 24.165.233.150 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have removed them, please help to do the same when these links reappear again. FEMA already provides a list of charities. It's not our role to verify or endorse these charities. --Vsion 23:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
Excellent catch 24.165.233.150. It appears consensus and WIKI requirements would ask the following be politely sent to their talk page: That the link is not to be placed in this article. Then if they redo it is my understanding they violate 3RR. So send the polite notice when you get a chance. The notice also appears right here.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
CACTUS (Community Action Council Of Tulane University Students) is a long-standing organization on Tulane's campus. It sounds as if their "New Orleans Hurricane Fund" is an upstart fund intended to "bring together the Tulane student body" in rebuilding the city. According to the linked website, they are planning to fill niche needs left unmet by larger releif organizations, specifically at schools and hospitals. Although CACTUS has a track record, this fund does not. I think it's best that promotion of this relief fund NOT feature prominently in this general interest encyclopedia, but we can wish them the best with their efforts among the Tulane community. Dystopos 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

CNN 100 billion alone for New Orleans

Cnn just reported that damages to New Orleans alone will exceed 100 billion. 71.32.199.15 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Article Link Chart

I cant figure out who did it, but great job and very appreciated. Thanks for noticing to shorten line length.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Tom688 great placement of Econ cover across for pic in New Orleans section. Let's guard it.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Summary Paragraph Link

At some point the Link 1 from yesterday got changed to a White House briefing page. The article can rightly include the link. However, I suggest that it be placed perhaps elsewhere in context in the article/placed as an external link.

The summary should not be used to place external links for several reasons including:

  • the Summary itself is the summary, and a link adds to the summary. The summy introduces all to follow. The Summy should speak for itself.
  • experience shows that whenever a link is put in a summary about current events especially that political passions rise. It's fine to have passion, but they should not appear in a summary.
  • Friday Sep 2 we already see verrrry heated political passions rising on this story that at first began as a report on the natural storm. The story is now shifting considerably.
  • the use of a White House web page in the Summary would not be considered neutral by some.
  • it would be true on the day a safety announcement is made, for example, that this type of link would have prominance. The time for issuing this safety announcement is long past.

Kyle Andrew Brown 00:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

References and Sources are Important. They are VERY appropriate for the introduction. Many wiki articles use them in their intro and the wiki guidelines do not support your position. Please distinguish between Sources (not connected to a specific fact), References (an external link or name of a source conected to a specific fact), and external link (term is best used when it is NOT also a reference or source). WAS 4.250 15:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Other Levee Disasters

"There has been no other levee breach causing such a level of death or evacuation"

This is mentioned in the article, so what is meant by that? In the USA? Well that might be right, but if youre talking about the whole world its VERY wrong.

There have been levee breaches in many parts of the worlds, on sea shores or rivers for centuries with tens of thousands to millions of dead! There have been several (1164, 1362, 1570, 1634, 1717 AD) storm tides in northern Europe with levee breaches causing tens of thousands (yes, above 10000 dead) dead in the past centuries. The breaches of levees on the yellow river in China even left hundreds of thousands dead. There may be more examples.

So I fixed that sentence.

Conference

Earlier it was discussed whether this article should be about the storm.

We should discuss this again, because in the days to come the political issues regarding the aftermath of the storm are going to be heated.

Is there a point where the "Hurricane Katrina" article needs to be left at the arrival of the storm, it's pyhsical description, it's immediate affect/impact. At just about the point we are now - - with ongoing updates/corrections of data. And then another article on the politics of Hurricane Katrina which are going to build and build in content and will devour the content already existing here in this article.
Today, also, we already see the difficulty of lurkers rummaging around the content and layout. I suggest the general record on this article is settling in and the rummaging of existing content mixed with new content is going to drive editing and preservation to the brink.
Political effects of Hurricane Katrina is set up for the politics.

Please join in this conversation.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Other floods

In March, 1982 in Fort Wayne, Indiana there was an abrupt warm front with much rain that moved over NE Indiana causing snow melt and flooding. Located at the confluence of the St. Mary's, St. Joseph and Maumee Rivers the waters crested and prompted sandbagging of the banks. Then-president Ronald Reagan was flown to the stricken area, took of his coat and helped with a few sandbags himself. Since then, a modern flood wall was built there. Musicwriter 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There was also the 1913 Great Dayton Flood which resulted in an amazing system of reservoirs to prevent future flooding; however, neither is worthy of discussion here. (Apologies for the sarcasm) Peyna 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Damage in Biloxi

Has there been any damage to Nativity BVM Cathedral on Howard Ave.? Musicwriter 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


shouldn't we place this somewhere more prominent and noticable?

http://survivedkatrina.proboards54.com/index.cgi {unsigned}

Neutrality check requested for Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

CrazyC83 has added an {{NPOV}} tag to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, apparently based on his belief that keeping the article POV-free "is virtually impossible. What some view as NPOV is POV for others, on both sides of the fence." I'd like for a neutral third party to have a look at the page and offer an opinion as to whether the tag is justified. -- BD2412 talk 02:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

As a general rule, it is inappropriate to place an NPOV tag without bringing specific correctable problems with the article to the Talk page. CrazyC83 ought to know that. If he can't defend the placement of the tag, it should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The Intro

I have reverted gone back to the my edited version of the intro because we MUST say when this happened. Furthermore, I deliberately specified it is the Louisiana's largest city because many people would not know that. We don't all live in the US. Moriori 02:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Controversies

Can someone tell me why the controversy in which an anti-abortion group blamed Katrina on the existence of abortion clinics in New Orleans not belong in the article? --Asbl 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

For the same reason that Osama Bin Laden saying that Katrina was punishment from Allah is not allowed either. It's religious extremism, and we're trying to keep a neutral point of view. In any case, that kind of thing would belong at the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, not here. --Titoxd 02:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Titoxd, that sounds like something of a misunderstanding of NPOV... If we can quote someone notable saying that the storm was punishment for whatever, then repeating that fact (that they said it) would not be a violation of NPOV and might well be of interest in the article. 24.165.233.150 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree. I was trying to come up with a less extreme example, but I couldn't come up with one. If Bin Laden ended up proclaiming that, then a whole lot of eyebrows would be raised and it would deserve a mention in the article. But my point is: the anti-abortion group isn't notable, so why should they be in the article? --Titoxd 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
With that, you have my agreement. 24.165.233.150 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Looting

It may be a good idea to update the looting section to differentiate the initial opportunistic looting (Stereos, shoes etc) from the later looting. The looting which is happening right now is arising from desperation due to a shortage of water and food, and I think that some distinction should be made between the two.

There is too much coverage of foreigners (tourists) doing all the looting. Some tourists from other countries were unable to leave New Orleans, and they had to take some food in order to survive. There are others kidnapping people, holding them up, commiting murders, and even shooting at the police. I would describe these as bandits, criminal gangsters or pirates rather than looters. Leistung 12:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Video Proof of Cops Looting

Here is a link to a video from WWL 4 New Orleans, that shows cops joining the looters, and it was not survival things that were taken. I had to admit that I laughed my a## off! If its proof you want here it is (just hope that the link is still there).

[17]

(Note: You will have to click the ‘play’ button, as the download is not automatic.)

Katrina.com?

http://digg.com/technology/How_The_Woman_Who_Owned_Katrina.com_Started_Helping_Victims (http://techdirt.com/articles/20050902/0141234_F.shtml)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-09-02-katrina.com_x.htm?csp=34

It seems that this Katrina.com bit is a very relevant bit of info. Shall we add to story? Lockeownzj00 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

hmmm. My first reaction is this is not a blog. I would expect a good blog to link to all sorts of side bar storys. I sorta think katrina.com is either human interest maybe promotion, but I'm not sure. I sorta think the encyclopedia article here records the natural affects of the storm and the starting point of where the politics evolve. Then in Political effects of Hurricane Katrina goes the truly political stuff. Where to put the human interest stuff like this appears to be, well first its newspaper site stuff really. At what point is it encyclopedic? That's the question you have to engage.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Free Press

Paragraph 2, Link No. 1 to Free Press broken.Kyle Andrew Brown 06:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Umm...you can fix it...--The Kooky One 20:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Stevertigo

User is completely removing entire sections of content and advisories. Changing layouts when asked not to do so without consensus. Refueses to discuss in TALK. He was advised to go to TALK and reach consensus.Kyle Andrew Brown 07:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't see too much problem with what he's doing, and considering the massive flux the article is in, it's probably a good thing, to minimize edits to one page. When this all calms down, we may be prudent to re-merge the list article into this one, because then, for example, the live feed section will be unnecessary, and the death toll table will have stabilized. --Golbez 08:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, but in that case, an HTML comment should be added so that editors know that it is a temporary thing, because it looks pretty ugly now with the "#" anchor links. Lexor|Talk 10:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
I see a big problem making massive changes without discussion and especially since he was told prior to this that the appropriate thing is to go to TALK. When he moved the pics he was being vindictive because he knew that he was politely said that many folks had worked on them, placing them and he just reverts. This mentality keeps up and the page will be chaos because no good editors will stick around.Kyle Andrew Brown 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I hadn't even been to this Talk page before, since I haven't been editing this article. But I saw the formatting changes to the charts this morning, and my first reaction was, "Why did they decide to do that?" There are now three places where the death toll has to be updated (The top of this article in the Katrina box, the small chart in the Death Toll section of this article, and in the lists article.), and it seems kind of silly. Since I now gather that the change was made by one person, without consensus, I think it should be put back. --DavidK93 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

MAD

Apparently they're going to be deploying Magnetic Acoustic Devices(MADs) for crowd control. Do we already have an article for this device? See http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68732,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 for details

See Long range acoustic device. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Death toll

The box on the right of the page says 1029 direct fatalities, but the box in the "Death toll (summary)" section gives "631+" direct fatalities. That's a fairly large inconsistency; are two different sources being used? Loganberry (Talk) 15:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There's unverified reports of a 1000+ death toll in Biloxi. Look further up this talk page and you'll see it. --YoungFreud 16:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't account for the difference of 398 between the two figures I mentioned. Surely they should both be being taken from the same sources, and therefore agree with each other? Loganberry (Talk) 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I concur that the two sections must agree. Neither section makes its source(s) explicit--and, given the wild estimates given in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, four years ago, I don't give much credence to the statements of politicians. They mean well--everyone's asking them for a number, and perhaps they need to quote something high, in order to emphasize the size of the need--but they're not on the ground. They're not trained in assessing casualty counts.
I recommend, with due respect, that the numbers at the top of the page use those in Death Toll as their basis, and that the numbers in Death Toll have direct references attached to them, ala "Florida ... Broward ... 3(source) or some such. Otherwise, how does the intrepid surfer confirm that there were two indirect fatalities in Jefferson County, OH?--RattBoy 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
This ridiculous. 1,000 people have not been confirmed dead. That is just an estimate. 10,000 people are not expected dead, that was just the mayor's guess. To quote him directly, he said "10,000 [deaths] would not be unreasonable". Only 180 something people have been confirmed dead, I.E. we have 180 bodies in morgues right now. That number will rise, but until we have an official death toll, we should stick with reliable estimates. I personally don't believe this storm will be deadlier the the Lake Okeechobee Hurricane of 1928. That storm killed 2,000 people in the US, yet it is not even mentioned in the records section. This articles death toll sections need some serious cleanup. No wild and ridiculous estimates should be placed here.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 23:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Image Error

The Death Summary section has the front page photo from the 9/2/05 New York Times of woman dead in water. It is a Agence France-Presse image. Wiki has already notified on the Source page it is marked for deletion because it is not marked for free use. It's not gong to remain for long.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


Causes and the Global Warming Discussion

I notice that every link to environmental causes of heavy hurricanes are deleted from this article. At the same time, throughout the world, people are discussing and referring to literature making exactly this link. Just google for "Katarina 'global warming'" and you get 263.000 pages. I assume that an organized group is intentionally erasing links from this article in order to leave the public uninformed. 84.171.235.12 14:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The cause of hurricanes belongs in the article about hurricanes not in the article about Katrina. Please read the prior discussion before making accusations. 24.165.233.150 17:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
The google result shows that people are making the connection. A simple link to literature and articles (times, CNN, science, nature) should not be removed. 84.171.255.215 17:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

So far I have had to restore the global warming issue on the main page 5 separate times in the past few days. Each time it has been removed without explanation (or without good explanation) by anonymous users, most resently by user 24.165.233.150. This information belongs in this section on environmental issues surrounding Katrina. As the sources show the media have been talking at length about the connection to THIS hurricane,

The statement in question is well sourced and gives both points of view. Please keep an eye out for those trying to disappear the statement in future. Here is how it apperes as of SEP/5/05...--Fluxaviator 02:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Many scientists and critics have stated that global warming was responsible for the rise in ocean surface temperatures that caused Katrina to go from a tropical storm to a devastating hurricane as it crossed the Gulf of Mexico between south Florida and New Orleans.[18][19] [20] Other scientists acknowledge the possible long term effects of global warming on cyclonogenesis, but attribute the strength of Hurricane Katrina to a 12 year cycle. [21] [22]
Much of this content is now in Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina (which is, itself, now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina). -- BD2412 talk 02:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Fluxaviator, the text you have been adding is misplaced and incorrect. Please provide a citation for the claim that many scientists claim that katrina specifically was caused by global warming. I am unable to provide a reliable citation saying that even a single scientist has made that claim. Above you make it sound like I was the only person to remove your text, which isn't the case. It has been removed by multiple editors. The matter is already covered accuratly and in some detail inside [[[Tropical cyclone]]. In any case as BD points out, if there were some matter specific to the hurricane that should be discussed, it should be in the causes article and not in the main article. --24.165.233.150 00:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you review Three_revert_rule before continuing your current course.

Additionally, if we mention Global Warming in the Katrina article, will we also have to mention it in every article on a hurricane since (magic point in time))? This results in a huge duplication of information, which could easily be covered in a separate article. Peyna 04:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Schedules events

Please note the availability of {{future}} in both articles and sections for the presence of scheduled events; an example is 2006 in music. WAS 4.250 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

International Reaction, revisited

A list of 25 nations offering assistance is in "International reaction" above. Simesa 17:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Right. Here's a question: If a country is linked, should a 'the' article be inside the referred country link or not? Mardus 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It seems that every country in the World has offered assistance. So why list them? Can anyone think of a country that did not offer aid? Leistung 16:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Rapid Wiki Responder

Thanks verrrry much BD2412 for being a Rapid Wiki Responder!Kyle Andrew Brown 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Economics and Employment

This sentence from the 09/03/05 Washington Post: "Before the storm, the Mobile, Ala., Biloxi, Miss., and New Orleans metropolitan areas supported about 1 million non-farm jobs, with about 600,000 of them in New Orleans."

I noted it in the Economic effects article, is the information placeable in the main article here?

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202468.htmlKyle Andrew Brown 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reasons people did not evacuate

I see the following uncited statement in the article: "Thousands of poor city residents were unable to leave the area because they lacked transportation or the means to pay for it."

Is this just some editor's guess or was it cited by some expert? Otherwise I think we need to remove it as I think the jury is still out on why so many people ignored the mandatory evacuation order. Homoneutralis 20:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The 2000 census shows that most had no private transportation methods. It's right there in the article.--The Kooky One 20:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

There were also tourists who got stuck inside NO. By the time the evacuation order came around, the airports were closed and rental car services were sold out.--YoungFreud 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


From the Washington Post editorial, Left Behind:
"Tragically, authorities in New Orleans were aware of this problem. Certainly the numbers were known. Shirley Laska, an environmental and disaster sociologist at the University of New Orleans, had only recently calculated that some 57,000 New Orleans Parish households, or approximately 125,000 people, did not have access to cars or other private transportation."
That number is roughly 1/4 of the population of New Orleans, and as YoungFreud pointed out, that also doesn't count the tourists in a major tourist destination. 4.232.105.59 09:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

A contributing reason is pets. Anecdotally, an elderly woman featured calling in on FOX cited her elderly dog as a reason for staying put, and a story about two elderly nuns mentioned they had concerns about caring for pets. Lack of a personal automobile combined with policies against pets on busses and planes may have caused many to stay, even in cases where a bus ticket was affordable. (24.218.106.196 02:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

Many tourists were unable to evacuate, because the authorities were giving "preference" to Americans. Some buses were hired by tourist, but these were then comandeered by the government! George Bush's continual rhetoric of putting Americans first could be responsible for this attitute. Leistung 16:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Why are Liberal advocacy sites sources for this event?

Does anyone else think it is strange that Democracy Now and Commondreams are cited as sources for "facts" about this event. I almost guarantee that if anyone put a statement in this article sourced from Newsmax or World News Daily, that it would by yanked for POV. Homoneutralis 20:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

If there is an accuracy problem with the content, bring it here.. If there is something wrong with a particular source, find an alternative source. --24.165.233.150 20:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
We've got some articles with sources from White supremacist sites cited as articles. I kind of have doubts over your guarantee.--220.238.233.226 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Exporting externals

This morning someone forked the externals off into another article without discussion. I'm sure this was well intentioned, but it comes off looking like a sneaky way to turn the article into a link directory. Please see WP:NOT. If the externals section grows too big, the correct solution is to trim it down, not put it into another page. It is important that a close eye is kept on the externals section because there have already been several instances of probable fraud donation sites being listed. Thanks. --24.165.233.150 20:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okie

I'm still at a loss of a word to describe these people.
What is the word that says you are a refugee within your own country just because nobody planned for your escape from a storm tracked by 21st century satellites and living in a community, state and nation with elected officials whose responsibility it is to care for you who just gave you a pass. Oppps, sorrry, this must be that POV sockpuppet within me at the keyboard...Kyle Andrew Brown 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Upwardly mobile? Leistung 10:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
The word is internally displaced person, by longstanding international agreement. Note that from a UN standpoint, a refugee is someone who crosses into another country and/or has justified fear of persecution. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
What is "evacuee". 202.142.214.75 19:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Watch this space. In about three days certain pundits are going to start claiming these people are lingering too long in the AstroDome until they get free homes, free jobs, limos..."
The image of people standing on a public street corner chanting to their government: "Help US, Help US, Help Us!" after four days without food and shelter....Kyle Andrew Brown 15:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

This is not for Wiki to decide. If some term enters common usage in the future, then it can have its own article, etc, but "crystal ball" is specifically listed in What Wikipedia is not. The fact that this section has been labelled "the future" is a red flag that it is not appropriate. David Iwancio 24.110.195.131 20:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

SURGE

Conspiracy theories

Well, it was probably inevitable... I've created an article on Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories, in order to house... ah... theories that have been put in some other articles without really belonging there (or anywhere else). -- BD2412 talk 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you having a standard to keep out the ridiculous, or is the article bound to evolve into the ridiculous and is that a permissible WIKI article. Oh and do we get photos of the aliens...remember they must be free domain and of excellent resolution. No grainy photos will be accepted....Kyle Andrew Brown 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Rest assured, Wikipedia has plenty of articles about the ridiculous. -- BD2412 talk 02:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

SomethingAwful down

I had to see this too believe it, but Something Awful is down. They only have a frontpage up right now, but the main servers were located in New Orleans, I believe in the DirectNIC building. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned under the Internet section (it is on the main article page), as SA is popular and rather infamous, but seems a bit trivial in light of what's going on.--YoungFreud 01:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

you might be interested in this link about PayPal blocking them from donations...

[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25915}Kyle Andrew Brown 15:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

An administrator specifically mentioned having to turn off the server for that site. So the server is probably physically OK and the site is likely to be easily restarted when power is restored. The location is running off a manually-refueled generator and they had to turn off a number of things. (SEWilco 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC))

Comparison to 1928 hurricane

I have not seen this mentioned anywhere (in the media or on wikipedia) but I see very close parallels between Katrina and the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane.

  • Both were strong category 4 storms at US landfall (weakened from category 5).
  • Both caused total devastation along the coast (well, what category 4 hurricane doesn't...).
  • Both caused (wide, shallow) lakes to overflow their levees and flood inhabited lower-elevation land.
  • Both floods persisted for weeks (presumably), leading to a humanitarian disaster.
  • In both floods, the victims were mostly poor and mostly minorities.
  • Both killed thousands (presumably).

While one can make comparisons between any set of destructive hurricanes I think the 1928 hurricane is the most closely comparable to Katrina - more so than Camille (which caused the devastation expected of any strong storm and happened to hit in the same place) or Betsy (which did cause flooding, and in the same location, but without the other disasters).

Should any mention of this be added to the Katrina article? Or is this just my own personal extrapolation?

Jdorje 02:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane did most of its killing in rural areas, incredibly! CrazyC83 16:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just came upon the Hurrican Katrina page, and it had been seriously vandalized. Someone under the IP address 202.7.183.130 had replaced the entire article with images of the human male penis in both the flacid and errect states. I'm glad I wasn't in an public place or somewhere else where it may have caused some awkward moments. If that's going to be happening, perhaps it's time to protect the article from editing until things cool down.
JesseG 02:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, it's Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg. Should be on bad image list - mentioning at WP:AN/I. ~~ N (t/c) 03:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

the ip 216.194.7.238 has also been replacing the infrared image of the hurricaine with tubgirl. classy, eh. Leigh Honeywell 15:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I just reloaded the article and it was directed to a Pamela Anderson page. Mardus 17:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I mean, redirected. -- Mardus 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved my messages here from the wrong section. Mardus 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Disaster wiki?

This isn't strictly about the encyclopedia, but: I had an idea that it could be good to have a disaster wiki. Possibly it could be through either Wikimedia or Wikicities.

One of the thing it could do is help volunteers, victims, etc., communicate. For instance, it could include an alphabetical listing of people affected and their status, a list of shelters and people willing to take in refugees. Maurreen (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Already exists for this particular disaster: [23]. This could be a worthy Wikimedia project, though... if we have sep11wiki, we might as well have this. ~~ N (t/c) 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Moved my messages under the "Vandalism" section.^^ Mardus 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Another one is katrinahelp.info. Note that both these sites explicitly include things that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
I also found this: *Think New Orleans Maurreen (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Storm surge uncertainty

There seems to be some disagreement over what Katrina's storm surge really was. I have seen the 30 feet statistic included in the article quoted at least by Yahoo News, but the St. Petersburg Times ([24]) says it was 29 feet, and the Monday 6 AM NHC forecast called for a maximum surge of 28 feet ([25]]). The 28 feet forecast seems to have been repeated as fact by several sources, including [26] and [27]. On the other hand, at least one source ([28]) gives the surge as "over 30 feet in spots", but does not provide further details. All these values are clearly peak values, and many news sources give Katrina's storm surge as 22 feet, the average (?) level given in the NHC forecast cited above. Given all this, I would either like to see an authoritative citation of the 30 feet statistic or some fuzz factor included in the article. Ataru 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between the surge and the maximum sea height. The surge is the height ON TOP of the tide, and since Katrina hit near high tide, 25 ft above sea level would have seen water from a 22 ft surge. Plus, you often have wave action on top of that height. 28 or 29 ft appears to the correct value, but water levels are seen higher than that. One home in Waveland reported water at nearly 40 feet, but that is possible with tide+surge+wave and would be consistent with the reports of seeing water damage over 30 feet in Biloxi. I've seen one surge map (NOAA or Navy) that I believe showed 29 feet, but I can't find it now. I'll try and find it and post it. 70.181.93.233 09:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
There are also places like the shore of Lake Pontchartrain, which is itself above sea level, and which concentrated the storm surge brought directly inside by counter-clockwise winds. I'm not sure we have an authoritative height for that. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Economist cover

This is such a very basic issue that a very experienced admin needs to step in here and clear this up. This conversation - while completely valid - is chewing up the morale of all very dedicated folks and chewing up editing time - - I joined others yesterday countless times reverting it because no one explained why they had removed it. This is a very specific WIKI approved answer and none of us are able to provide it.
Because this issue is a TALK, and because it is about a question of violation of Wiki policy, the cover CANNOT at this time be in the article. It is inappropriate WIKI procedure to revert it back in the article. It is entirely appropriate to revert it out. (And I for one hope the cover passes the WIKI test!)
Wiki admin: Can a cover depicting the discussion in an article be placed in that article. YES or NO.


Someone removed "The Economist" photograph of New Orleans, under the belief that it was not allowed under copyrght law. Here is a direct quote from the fair use tag: [to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.]. We are illustrating the publication of this issue of the magazine on Hurricane Katrina. It qualifies. 71.32.199.15 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That someone is moving alot of stuff and we sorta know who.
Wiki protocol requires that removal of content, especially longstanding, needs to be brought up in TALK. Any type of revert or major edit should by practice be stated in the comment on the history page.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I took it out, simply because the image is violating the fair use clause we're claiming, and there is currently a crackdown on fair use images. --Titoxd 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
For us non-lawyers, how is it in violation of fair use? ~~ N (t/c) 05:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
We can only use the image on The Economist's article to illustrate it, not anywhere else. It's a copyrighted work. --Titoxd 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Tito, I don't think you understand what fair use means for a magazine cover. Please re-read it, it does not say only restricted to illustrating the publication of the magazine it says the publication of this issue, which means it is allowed for this article. The image of the publication of the Hurricane Katrina issue is allowed on the Hurricane Katrina page. 71.32.199.15 17:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


{{Magazinecover}}


<<It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,>> And we are illustarting the Hurricane Katrina issue. 71.32.199.15 17:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't be dense, it means "issue" as in "issue number 12" not in terms of what it's covering. It clearly is not fair use to abuse the magizine covert just to add another illustraiton to the article. 24.165.233.150 17:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, you are being dense. Read it. I am a paralegal, you obviously have no exp. in these matters. Even the Sept. 11th article has magazine covers. 71.32.199.15 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


Why do you think it says "this issue in question"? Under your intepretation it should read only one cover for a magazine. To illustrate the publication of it. It does not. It says THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION. 71.32.199.15 17:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

From my talk page:

It is fair use to use an illegial copy to discuss the work in question, for example I can use the cover of a book to illustrate an article on the book. But it is not okay to use the cover elseware, for example I can not use the cover to talk about books. ... Or for example I could use an album cover depicting slaves to discuss the album or the band, but I couldn't use it on an article on slavery without a discussion of the album. Now, you could add a discussion of the album to slavery of sufficent depth to make it fair use to include the image, but that text would almost certantly be removed due to being off topic. 24.165.233.150 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you could actually use that album cover if the music was indeed about slavery. 71.32.199.15 17:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


To make it clear:

The tag reads:

  • "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question"

Under your interpretation it should read:

  • "to illustrate the publication of the magazine in question"

It does not because your interpretation is wrong. 71.32.199.15 17:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No, the text was clarified because our bar is even higher than discussing the mag... we prefer people to use public domain pictures to discuss mags where possible, and only use fair use images when they must discuss a specific issue of the mag. Both Titoxd and I are experienced Wikipedians. I have spent a lot of time working intellectual property issues on Wikipedia. This issue has been hashed out many times, and the position I am advancing here is the consensus position. --24.165.233.150 17:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

That's funny multiple articles have magazine covers - and they are not the magazine's article. Even the wording of the tag is clear. Until this is resolved, I suppose we should remove them all. 71.32.199.15 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

List of images that use to be on articles, but now under the new interpretation of 24.165.233.150 must be removed:

700,000+ articles and thats all you could find? :) We're doing pretty good then. I can't comment on the 9/11 article, there may be a more complicatied situation which permits the use.. it's also dependant on the article text (which I haven't read for 9/11)... or it's quite possible our use there was a violation as well. Keep in mind WP:Point, you aren't likely to get support with that sort of action. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who is reading the magcover notice differently than I am... --24.165.233.150 18:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I am stopping at this point, but there are hundreds that under your interpretation would need to be removed. Because according to you, they must discuss the magazine, not just the event. 71.32.199.15 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't flawless, I'd be shocked if you couldn't find a few dozen. There are thousands of copyright violations on Wikipedia. Just because you can find other examples doesn't mean that you're right... it might just mean that they were wrong. I was kinda hoping you'd continue your disruptive tirade: I was already looking for something to make into a copyvio destroyer barnstar to award to you. :) --24.165.233.150 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
If you do decide that you'd like to start disrupting wikipedia to prove a point again, you can start here in your audit. ... You'll likely save someone else the effort of fixing a lot of these, so have fun. --24.165.233.150 19:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you are disrupting Wikipedia. I still believe my interpretation is correct. I am merely waiting for others to add more to the discussion. You are being a bit pompous. Plus if you think you are correct, then it would be considered correction not disruption. Or do you now think that you are wrong? 71.32.199.15 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

My view of WP:Point has always been built around intention. Someone who is intending to help directly is not in violation of WP:Point no matter what they do (thought they might be breaking other guidelines), and someone who is doing something they disagree with just to make a point is breaking WP:Point even if what they are doing is good. I think that if you removed every questionable mag cover it would be a good thing, although I'm sure you'd get a few wrong (since it really must be considered per article and its sometimes a complex issue) but in general it would be an improvment from a copyright and freedom perspective. This is why I've encouraged you to do it, and provided you with a list of images to check. However, since you don't actually agree with the action you'd still be violating wp:point which is frowned on, even if others would thank you for cleaning up some fair-use abuse. I'm not trying to be rude, what you take as pompousness is just confidence: I've dealt with this issue before and I know your position isn't correct. My position supported by many other Wikipedians. --24.165.233.150 20:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Issue does not mean subject, it means publication. That's the position we've been working under for quite a while, and I don't see if it's going to change anytime soon. We're not going to hide under an imprecise definition offered by a template, but rather by the legal precedents behind the issue. 24.165.233.150 is right on this one. Titoxd 00:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)