Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 5

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

Looting and Violence

There is a note saying this is not conforming to NPOV. It appears there was looting and violence in the aftermath. (This can be expected, as the effects of the hurricane seemed to catch everyone off guard.) This should be mentioned. If the claims of looting etc. were found later to be exaggerated, this also should be mentioned.

This section does seem a little confused, and has some comments in it which should be removed. If no one wants to, I will have a go at cleaning it up, and remove the POV tag. I would say briefly that looting was reported, and that later, some claimed that the reports of looting were exaggerated. Wallie 10:13, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

CNN aired videos of bloody corpses on the ground, you should also mention the witness accounts by the foreigners.

The current write-up still seems too based on contemporary quotes, most of which have proven to be unreliable second-hand reports, rather than solid evidence. For example, Channel 4's Dispatches programme of 31 Oct 2005 interviewed Dr Greg Henderson, one of the doctors at the convention centre, who said that, despite all the reports of violence, he didn't treat a single victim of violence (although in a subsequent webchat, he says that, while reports did exaggerate the amount of gun or knife violence, he thinks there were a number of rapes: http://www.channel4.com/community/showcards/D/Dispatches_-_Hurricane_Katrina.html ). I'll try to find a transcript of the show so as to put exact quotes in the article. Bondegezou 14:16, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm making an attempt to work on this. My goal is to keep as much content as possible, while putting it in perspective. I do have a POV on it so I welcome discussion on my attempts. Eventually, I hope to remove the POV banner. I'm hoping someone else does before I do. --Elliskev 01:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Great. The article at present just mentions that the claims of looting were exaggerated. Readers of the article would wonder what looting was reported in the first place. As you mention, the foreigners/their media reported violence... and so did the local media. The looting/violence story is an integral part of Katrina, just as it was with the San Francisco Earthquake of 1906. Wallie 06:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that the looting and violence were big stories and they deserve more than a small mention. At least three times that I recall, rescue operations were halted because the rescuers were being fired upon (or at least believed they were being fired on) by looters. Unfortunately, I guess most of the looters were never caught, and the city is still in dissaray, so that makes it difficult to cite official crime records or the like. Johntex\talk 21:11, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

JohnTex says that the looting and violence were big stories here. They certainly were overblown stories. The facts are that there were no reported rapes. There were no large numbers of assaults, and no homicides in the SuperDome, despite reports of the same. And rescue people say that they never actually stopped any rescue operations because of being shot at. Yet again another urban legend.

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/12801034.htm attempts to confirm or deny the reports in this article and is more credible than the Wikipedia article, so far, on this subject that cites no evidence for its point of view. I am going to attempt to bring some balance to this very subjective section based on the Knight-Ridder and several other news stories. So far as I am aware, what is added to Wikpedia articles should be sourced; the problem with this section of this article is that nothing is sourced. The rules are no POV or original research. Remember? skywriter 02:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Category 3?????

article suggests that Katrina was only a Category 3 storm (and barely) when it made landfall. That makes no sense at all once you go beyond the ground estimates. There are several reasons:

1) Due to the strong winds and storm surge experienced, the wind gauges may have easily stopped functioning, which means it may not have picked up the strongest winds.

2) The pressure - 918 mb - would translate into about a 165 mph storm; while a deviation of 15 or 20 mph makes some sense, a deviation of 50 mph from its normal capacity??? There must be some major underestimation there.

3) The storm surge data, showing 25 to 35 feet, would be more typical of a Category 5 storm. While it may have withstood the modest weakening to a Category 4, there is no way a Category 3 storm can have such high storm surges on an open coastline.

4) With no real shear, how could a storm weaken from 175 mph to 115 mph that fast? Eyewall cycles alone would not do such. CrazyC83 23:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the NHC archives at 6 AM it had max sustained winds of 145mph, min pressure of 918 mb. At 8 AM it had max sustained winds of 135 mph, min pressure of 923 mb. But, that's always preliminary data. The NHC will go back and review all the wind data and everything else and almost always makes modifications after the fact.
Category 3 is up to 130 mph, so that's only losing 15 mph from the estimates of 145 mph at landfall, which falls into your "sensical deviation".
Pressure and Wind Speed, while related, aren't dispositive of each other. For example, Hurricane Ivan at one point had a minimum pressure of 919 and a wind speed of 135. The next readings showed 920/130, 916/140, 920/140, etc. You get the point. You can look at other historical data for other 2004 hurricanes here: [1]. There are nice charts giving all the pressure and corresponding wind speed readings.
So, I'm not sure what your point is. Katrina was originally thought to be a Category 4 (131-155), making landfall with 145 mph winds; the NHC is reviewing their data and said it might end up that it was actually a Category 3 (111-130) when it made landfall. Also, the "wind gauges" are onboard hurricane hunter aircraft, and therefore probably were not damaged by the high winds and storm surge.
Peyna 00:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Maybe a note along the lines of reinforcing meteorologists advisories that the category rating of hurricanes ... is only one of many measurements to classify ... take every hurricane warning seriously... would put it in perspective? Just a thought. I'm not sure I could word it effectively. --Elliskev 01:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

i find this scary. If it was only a 3 what would a 4 or 5 do?? i thought Katrina would be the worst but it looks like we could get one much worse.

VERY small details : "Katrina weakened thereafter, losing hurricane-strength more than 150 miles (160 km) ..." I couldn't determine the distance from the coast to Jackson from the web, but either "150" or "160" is wrong. Also "Shelters in Texas" - the non-polically-correct term "refugees" slipped in. "Evacuees" is used elsewhere. 81.250.195.107 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say I was impressed when I read in the Washington Post that some report recatagorized Katrina to a 3 upon landfall. I meant to come on to Wikipedia and change this (since most think it was a 4 or even 5 category hurricane) and it was already changed! Awesome Qoforensics 23:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • * * * * * *

I believe I can shed some light on this. First I'd like to note that I just created an account, but in the past month have executed significant edits to the Hurricane Katrina page in sections Storm History and Non-Governmental Charitable Response, in order to include information about the MS and AL Gulf Coasts, and the LA coast. I also just rewrote the Loop Current entry section on how the loop current affects hurricanes.

OK, it is absolutely true that Katrina hit the MS Gulf Coast as a Cat 3, not as a higher-intensity storm. Intensity is measured by the highest winds. This of course highlights the problem with the current five-category rating system. At the time it was created, it was a huge improvement over the previous system for categorizing hurricanes (um...nothing). Note that categories 3-5 represent "major" hurricanes.

The main problem with this categorization as it reflects on Katrina (and Rita as well), is 1) it does not necessarily reflect the storm surge, and 2) it does not take into account the size of the storm. For both Katrina and Rita, the surge that was generated when they were Cat 5 storms did not have time to dissipate prior to landfall, so meteorologists generally recognise that the surge for these storms was at a Cat 5 level, and indeed the NHC advisories did leave the surge warnings at the Cat 5 level for Katrina prior to landfall, even when the storm started to weaken. With Katrina, the storm surge was exacerbated by the shape of the coast in relation to its trajectory at landfall; the upside-down-L shape of the LA/MS coasts took the brunt of the surge, which was funneled in part by the strong western winds of the northern eyewall. Detailed high water measurements are occuring along the coast which will result in a study of the surge. However high water measurements include wave action at the shore, and also include rising water due to the copious landfall, so it will never be 100% clear exactly how much of the high water was due to surge in each specific location (even though it is clear that it is mostly due to surge).

OK...the size of the storm. In both cases, the large size of the storm spread the surge over a much greater area than ever previously experienced along the Gulf Coast. By comparison, Camille was a compact but strong Cat 5 hurricane at landfall along the MS Gulf Coast, and its high surge extended not more than 15-20 miles to the east of the eye, with the highest surge limited to a very narrow strip of shoreline. By contrast, more than 50 miles east of where the center of the eye made landfall (the MS/LA border), Katrina's surge was over 20 feet, and the area of highest surge, 30 feet (and possibly higher), extended for a great many miles (at least 40 miles of coastline and probably more, going west from Biloxi). Unofficial surge numbers I have determined in Jackson County are 25-26 feet in the SW corner around Gulf Hills and just inland of there, 22-24 feet in Ocean Springs, 15 feet into Mary Walker Bayou of Gautier, 16-18 feet in Pascagoula, and Mobile officially is going with something like 11-12 feet. Ocean Springs is about 50 miles to the east of the LA/MS border.

Finally...back to the Cat 3 winds. Gulfport and Biloxi area received the highest winds from the eastern eyewall (this also includes the SW portion of Jackson County that bordered Biloxi Back Bay). The sustained winds were definitely not over 120-125mph, which is Cat 3, and lasted approximately 90 minutes. There was Cat 3 damage in Harrison and Jackson counties at these mentioned locations. Almost all of the tremendous coastal damage was due to the high storm surge. What would a Cat 4 be like? You don't want to know. As far as Plaquemines and St Bernard Parishes, that damage also would be for the most part due to storm surge. Other areas definitely received extreme winds but I don't have any data on these winds. The way to identify these areas is mainly blow-down, which requires winds above say 110mph. These areas include Plaquemines Parish (which would be the only area that would have received Cat 4 winds and Cat 4 damage; however the entire area was likely underwater and so most of the evident damage is clearly done by storm surge and waves). In Plaquemines Parish aerial photos of the damage, many acres trees snapped off at the base, and dropping to the NW, can be seen. This is clearly high wind damage, corresponding to the direction of the strong NE eyewall winds at landfall there. Other areas with a lot of blowdown include Slidell LA and Pearlington and Kiln MS. A strong area of the northern eyewall rotated to the west over these areas at landfall. Also, generally, strong winds were felt along the entire 3 MS coastal counties, as all those counties lost over 50% of their trees. Significant tree loss also occured to the north of Jackson County, in George County, due to the NE movement of the storm after landfall and the strong feeder band going north over Jackson and Mobile counties for some time after landfall. So, in addition to the sustained winds, clearly there were a lot of gusts of higher winds above 110mph over a large area of southern MS. Hattiesburg received significant hurricane-force winds for some hours. The windfield was quite extensive in size. Early on, a gust to 118mph was recorded at Pascagoula (and documented by NHC in their 8am advisory) around 7:30am, when the eye was three hours away from making landfall (!), shortly before the roof blew off of the EOC there. Pascagoula is about 65 miles east of the MS/LA state line.

Hope this answers some of your questions! Mkieper 19:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

  • * * * * * *

Regarding the relationship of lowest central pressure to windspeed, they do not always tally as expected. An example of this is when Katrina exited FL into the GOM. Many thought she would 'blow up' immediately, but intrusion of dry air kept the windspeed down (no higher than 115mph) for almost two days (from 3am Friday until midnight Saturday); however, the pressure kept inching down that entire time, and Katrina was the type of hurricane that hung onto every last mb of pressure drop and didn't let it go. At 10pm Friday the pressure was down to 939mb, which would be more indicative of a Cat 4 with 140mph winds, and the highest windspeed was still only 115mph at that time. Once solidly over the loop current the winds did catch up to the pressure drops. Again, before landfall, intrusion of dry air, which came very close to the core, and which before landfall eroded into the SW eyewall, dropped the windspeed down well before the pressure drops. Also having part of the storm over land dropped the windspeed down before the official landfall of the eye along the MS coastline. It is actually very typical for winds to drop significantly before the pressure drop, at landfall, due to friction with the land and removal of the warm water source for strengthening. This year Dennis's windspeed dropped rapidly as it approached land and started to fall apart (also, the highest winds did not come down to the ground level in some places after landfall, but remained aloft...I don't have the knowledge to explain this phenomenon further so if you have more questions on this perhaps a met can respond with more detailed info).

Mkieper 20:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Bus Discussion

Someone need to do a NPOV check for the discussion of the buses that were not used for evacuation. One sentence that was particularly glaring was: "Any licensed driver is suitable in an emergency." This looks like POV to me, and it leads me to doubt the neutrality of the whole discussion.--140.247.240.181 05:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Early this morning, user:64.12.116.8 made a large number of undiscussed deletions regarding the bus situation (and the conditions in the shelters, and added material about the American Red Cross that wasn't supported by the cite given). However, there does appear to be a lot on the bus discussion, and - while deleting it entirely isn't appropriate - an NPOV check in the light of day is probably needed. Simesa 08:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some fair and accurate changes to the obviously biased presentation of information about the use of buses. NOTHING that I changed is unable to be supported - everything that I changed is supported by the evidence readily available.
Yet it was changed back to the biased, partisan version that was faulty. THAT was wrong.
What you, user:64.12.116.8, did was to remove en masse and without cite or discussion the text and picture. Both this IP and user:205.188.116.130 (who wrote the above comment) have a history of doing this. If you think the text is in error, find a reasonably competent source that says so and I'm confident that soon a balanced presentation will be made. Simesa 20:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not well versed on HOW things get changed here, and it appears that there has been an horrific amount of biased postings on this subject, with smears against Nagin, etc. Wikipedia says that we should FEEL free to change items that are false or inaccurate. That is what I did. As an inexperienced poster who has done a great deal of research on this issue to learn the facts and refute the lies and misstatements and smears, I was unaware that my doing what Wikipedia SEEMS to encourage me to do would be an issue. I will see if I have time tomorrow to substantiate EVERYTHING that I posted as well as debunk those items that I removed as irrelevant, distortions or unfairly biased versions of events. I easily CAN find cites for EVERYTHING I said, and so could any reasonable researcher, and as such, it would seem to me that it would be up to those that dispute MY evidence to disprove it, which they could NOT do. I believe that MY IP is simply AOL Online, so it is unreasonable to suggest that *I* have a history of doing this. I do not know what ANY other poster has deleted or added, and I do not know if they do so unfairly or with bias. *I* know that *I* did NOT do that! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.72 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Please start with Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers, and I apologize for not spotting that you were an AOL user. I do suggest you create an account (all you need do is select a username and password) so that messages can be left for you. Perhaps you'd like to discuss editing with an administrator? Simesa 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
It is hard to recognize a claim that "I" does something when "I" can not be identified. (SEWilco 05:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC))

I hope that an editor can review this information and use it to compile a fair exposition of the issues involving the evacuation and creation of last resort shelters in New Orleans. Please see the edits I attempted to insert and the deletions I made as an anonymous poster on 10/11 or 10/12/05.

The link that the original author provides to the Washington Times story http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050909-113107-3180r.htm repeats the lie that photos showed 2000 buses under water, and the distortion that Nagin could have used those buses. That story alleges that there was a completed city of New Orleans evacuation plan that was ignored. That is untrue. There was not a completed evacuation plan - it was still a draft document. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9231926/ The state evacuation plan suggested that buses, including school buses, MAY be used, but it was not part of any plan to guarantee use of buses to move people out of the city. Another link included by the author points to a report by Lisa Myers, previously linked to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9231926/, and in her report, she states that the report is in the draft stages. In fact, the city DID have plans in the works to inform residents of New Orleans on how to act and react to natural disasters and calls for evacuations. "In scripted appearances being recorded now, officials such as Mayor Ray Nagin, local Red Cross Executive Director Kay Wilkins and City Council President Oliver Thomas drive home the word that the city does not have the resources to move out of harm's way an estimated 134,000 people without transportation." That plan was close to being complete when the storm hit, and was scheduled to be mailed out to residents in mid-September. "Production likely will continue through August. Officials want to get the DVDs into the hands of pastors and community leaders as hurricane season reaches its height in September." This article in the New Orleans Times-Picayune http://www.nola.com/search/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1122184560198030.xml?nola explains in detail what was likely to be included in that informational packet to be sent out throughout the city. "An RTA emergency plan dedicates 64 buses and 10 lift vans to move people somewhere; whether that means out of town or to local shelters of last resort would depend on emergency planners' decision at that moment, RTA spokeswoman Rosalind Cook said. But even the larger buses hold only about 60 people each, a rescue capacity that is dwarfed by the unmet need. In an interview at the opening of this year's hurricane season, New Orleans Emergency Preparedness Director Joseph Matthews acknowledged that the city is overmatched. "It's important to emphasize that we just don't have the resources to take everybody out," he said in a interview in late May."

The author of the existing encyclopedic entry on evacuation issues also states "some have claimed school bus drivers were not available". In fact, Nagin and Blanco stated that they searched for bus drivers but were unable to find many that were willing to risk their lives to enter the city before the storm hit. In an interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press on the Sunday, September 11th, after the storm hit, Nagin said "You can't find drivers that would stay behind with a category five hurricane, you know, pending(sic) down on New Orleans. We barely got enough drivers to move people on Sunday or -- on Sunday, Saturday and Sunday, to move them to the Superdome. We barely had enough drivers for that. So sure, we had the assets, but the drivers just weren't available." And later in the same interview Nagin said "The planning was always in getting people to higher ground, getting them to safety. That's what we meant by evacuation, get them out of their homes which most people are under sea level, get them to higher ground and then depend upon our state and our federal officials to move them out of harm's way after the storm has hit." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9240461/ As Nagin says in this interview, and other emergency preparedness officials from across the nation have stated, "Keep in mind, we always assume that after two to three days the cavalry will be coming." Nagin said that his "fundamental assumption was get as many people to safety as possible, and that the cavalry would be coming within two to three days, and they didn't come." After the storm hit, Blanco ordered that school districts around the state provide school buses and bus drivers to help evacuate those trapped in New Orleans. http://2theadvocate.com/stories/090205/new_buses001.shtml Some school districts did not provide buses however. Those school districts were those that had contracts with private companies to provide transportation to school kids. "Among Baton Rouge-area school systems, only West Feliciana Parish schools, where most bus drivers are independent contractors, is holding school today. "I don't have the power to tell my bus drivers that they have to go to New Orleans," Superintendent Lloyd Lindsey said." This is similar to the status of buses and bus drivers in New Orleans, and so not only would the Orleans Parish School Superintendent not be able to order bus drivers to evacuate residents, but the Mayor and the Governor would have had no rights or abilities either. "When the water rose, the state began scrambling to find buses. Officials pleaded with various parishes across the state for school buses. But by Tuesday, Aug. 30, as news reports of looting and violence appeared, local officials began resisting. Governor Blanco said the bus drivers, many of them women, "got afraid to drive. So then we looked for somebody of authority to drive the school buses." http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050911/ZNYT02/509110473 This same article, originally published by the New York Times, explains that senior FEMA officials in Washington, people who were not political appointees but were career employees with significant disaster preparedness experience, saw the need for delivery of buses by FEMA as early as the Friday before the storm. "As early as Friday, Aug. 26, as Hurricane Katrina moved across the Gulf of Mexico, officials in the watch center at FEMA headquarters in Washington discussed the need for buses. Someone said, "We should be getting buses and getting people out of there," recalled Leo V. Bosner, an emergency management specialist with 26 years at FEMA and president of an employees' union. Others nodded in agreement, he said. "We could all see it coming, like a guided missile," Mr. Bosner said of the storm. "We, as staff members at the agency, felt helpless. We knew that major steps needed to be taken fast, but, for whatever reasons, they were not taken." These experts did not suggest that the city should have been evacuating their own residents using buses, but rather thought that FEMA should have provided buses from outside the area as well as drivers to staff those buses.

So, Nagin clarifies what the planning was on getting those people to safety who could not or would not drive themselves out of town. That plan was to get those people to a Shelter of Last Resort. He states that it was NOT to get them out of the city - it was to get them to a safe haven, and they did offer that option to their residents. This is contrary to the assertions of many on the right - that the evacuation plan called for the movement of people out of the city. Nagin says the plan called to move them to shelter within the city, and that is what was offered and provided and utilized. If the storm passed without causing widespread damage, as happened in Hurricane Ivan, they could have simply allowed residents to return to their homes. If massive flooding and/or wind damage made the city unlivable, as happened after Hurricane Katrina, then the citizens that chose to go to the Superdome would be evacuated after the storm had passed and it was safe to bring supplies and equipment in.

Evacuation experts state that it would have taken 2000 buses to evacuate those left in the city. That is assuming 50 people on commercial buses with some personal supplies and/or suitcases and belongings being stored under the bus. There were many fewer buses than 2000 available in the city.

As the urban legends site Snopes.com http://snopes.com/katrina/photos/buses.asp points out in reference to the much-published picture of school buses in a flooded parking lot, there are many factors to consider above and beyond the simple presence of buses. "Such a claim presumes an availability of resources (e.g., experienced drivers, fuel) and workable logistics (e.g., sufficient means of notifying and getting residents to departure points, sufficiently clear roads for multiple trips out of town and back, adequate facilities within a reasonable driving distance capable of providing shelter, food, and water to a large number of people for an indeterminate period of time on short notice) that may or may not have been present. (There's no guarantee that all the buses shown in this picture were even in working condition.) And, given the particular geography of New Orleans, any such evacuation would have had to have begun well in advance of Hurricane Katrina to avoid exposing residents to the potential danger of being stuck in buses on traffic-clogged roads in the path of an approaching hurricane. Moreover, any type of evacuation effort would have incurred a substantial outlay of funds from local and/or state governments — while everyone agrees with the advantage of hindsight that would have been money well spent, many taxpayers might not have been left feeling so enthusiastic about footing the bill for an unnecessary evacuation had Hurricane Katrina not proved so damaging.

From an interview on September 10, 2005 with the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Mayor Nagin explained that he did NOT control the buses or the bus drivers that belonged to a private company and were used to transport school children. http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09_10.html#078692 He explained how the situation played itself out. "But he said there were various logistical hurdles that made it hard to use that equipment, and the buses would have hardly created a dent in the size of the crowds anyway. “It’s up for analysis,” he said. “But we didn’t have enough buses. I don’t control the school buses. And who was going to drive them even if we commandeered them? If I’d have marshaled 50 RTA buses, and a few school buses, it still wouldn’t have been nearly enough. Our plan was always to use the buses to evacuate to the Dome as a shelter of last resort, and from there, rely on state and federal resources.” Yet again he explains how the city DID implement the evacuation plan they intended to, and so accusations that Nagin did not follow that draft plan that suggested using buses to move people out of low-lying areas are without factual support. In this same newspaper interview, the following points are made. "Part of the discomfort in the Dome and Convention Center owed to the lack of toilet facilities after the city’s water system went down late Wednesday. The city’s hurricane plan calls for portable toilets at shelters, but none ever arrived. Nagin said his understanding was that the National Guard was in charge of providing them." http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_09_10.html#078692 This means that the people in the Superdome had food, water, and working plumbing at least on some level through Wednesday. The storm hit on Monday morning, the state of emergency was declared on Friday into Saturday, two to three days before the storm hit.

And with another view of the feasibility of using city buses or private groups to evacuate people to other locations, read this article from the New Orleans Times-Picayune. http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-10/1120800316204660.xml "In past years planners have talked about recruiting churches and their small private fleets into an evacuation effort. The idea, called Operation Brother's Keeper, has largely withered in the face of the complexity of the details, said Kay Wilkins, a spokeswoman for the American Red Cross. The state Legislature last year killed a bill to give immunity from liability to any person or organization providing free transportation during an emergency, except in cases of gross negligence. Critics of the bill said volunteers could be covered by insurance and questioned whether the proposal would be constitutional." "The city assumes residents will look first to family and friends for rides out of the city, she said. If events warrant evacuation, the Regional Transit Authority will contribute part of its 364-bus fleet to an effort that will end at undisclosed shelters north of Lake Pontchartrain, RTA spokeswoman Rosalind Cook said. Not all the buses will be available, she cautioned. "We might be talking about as many as 100," she said. The agency would hold much of its fleet back to continue operating on city streets until forced to shut down by a city curfew. The number of evacuation buses is further limited by the number of volunteer drivers who sign up to drive them away, she said. Even if the entire fleet was used, the buses would carry only about 22,000 people out of the city -- far short of the 134,000 people estimated to be without cars in a recent University of New Orleans study."

As Media Matters for America documents, The Washington Times http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050906-122931-2126r.htm alleged that there were 2000 buses available for evacuation use. http://mediamatters.org/items/200509120005. Many other conservative pundits echoed this claim. In 2003, the Orleans Parish school district operated 324 buses. From the state of Louisiana's own records, the city buses totaled 364 in May, 2005. that totals under 700 buses, if all of them are actually running, many less than the 2000 claimed in the Washington Times article.

The New York Times claimed on September 4, 2005 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/04/national/nationalspecial/04reconstruct.html?ex=1129348800&en=3983fd4a513d95e3&ei=5070&pagewanted=print that in order to evacuate 100,000 stranded citizens and visitors in New Orleans, 2000 buses would have been required. Perhaps that is the original source of the figure of 2000 buses, but it is clear that there never was anywhere close to that number available.

Another is that using buses was part of a city of New Orleans evacuation plan. However, there was no city plan that was being used. The city evacuation plan was still in the development phase, having been initiated because of Mayor Nagin's insights after Hurricane Ivan struck.

St Charles Parish ordered their mandatory evacuation at 9 AM on Saturday, August 27th, 2005. Mayor Nagin was well aware of the need to evacuate the city as early as possible, but he was also aware of a compact within the state that Southern Parishes such as St Charles and Plaquemines needed to evacuate first. In an article by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Nagin addressed this issue. "New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin encouraged Jefferson Parish officials to follow the state evacuation plan, which calls for low-lying coastal areas to evacuate first. Jefferson officials broke with the plan to call for an early evacuation for Hurricane Dennis in July. Nagin, in an interview with Channel 4 news, said all officials need to make quick decisions to handle the approaching storm. “The problem with this storm is that it’s going to compress everything,” Nagin said. “We have a shorter window to deal with this storm and we’ve got to get people to start evacuating.” http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_27.html#074505 Later that same morning, "Plaquemines Parish has declared a mandatory evacuation. Officials were in the process of picking up special-needs residents at mid-day Saturday. Jefferson Parish officials declared a voluntarily evacutation for most of the parish but a mandatory evacuation for the coastal areas of Grand isle, Crown Point, Lafitte and Barataria. St. Bernard Parish has recommended all residents evacuate, though it likely will not declare a mandatory evacuation because the parish won’t offer shelters, said Emergency Management Director Larry Ingargiola." Also, "St. Tammany Parish has issued an evacuation order - with residents asked to leave by noon Sunday. This especially applies to residents south of Interstate 12."

In an official statement later on Saturday, made during a joint afternoon press conference with Governor Blanco, the mayor said he would stick with the state’s evacuation plan and not officially call for residents to leave until 30 hours before expected landfall, allowing residents in low-lying surrounding areas to leave first. But he recommended residents in low-lying areas of the city, such as Algiers and the 9th Ward, get a heard start. “We want you to take this a little more seriously and start moving — right now, as a matter of fact,” Nagin said. http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_27.html#074505

So, Nagin suggested that people start leaving on Saturday, but he respected the state evacuation plan and refrained from calling for a mandatory evacuation until early Sunday morning to allow those residents of the southernmost parishes to get past the city of New Orleans so that they would not be stuck in bottlenecks caused by evacuating New Orleanians.

At 9:30 AM on Sunday, August 28, 2005, The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported that Nagin had called for a mandatory evacuation. http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html "The Superdome has been opened for people with special needs and as a shelter of last resort. Residents should call (504) 568-3200 to reserve space in this shelter. The city has set up ten pickup areas to take people to emergency shelters. RTA buses will be picking up citizens for free and take them to these shelters. The number to call for pickup areas is 1-800-469-4828. Residents are asked to bring food for 3-5 days, pillows, blankets, and any other supplies needed." Also, "Nagin said the dome’s availability to residents doesn’t mean that going there is a good idea. “I want to emphasize, the first choice of every citizen should be to leave the city,” he said. He noted that the Dome is likely to be without power for days — and possibly weeks — after the storm fits, and said it will not be a comfortable place. At the same time, the mayor said, going to the dome is a better option than staying home. Many homes are likely to suffer serious damage and flood." After the mandatory evacuation notice was announced and the Superdome was declared to be the Shelter of Last Resort, "to make sure word of the mandatory evacuation gets out, Nagin said that police and fire crews would be driving through neighborhoods Sunday with bullhorns, directing people to leave." On "Sunday night, the military delivered 360,000 meals-ready-to-eat to the 30,000 people using the Superdome as a shelter. Hot food was served Sunday night and Monday morning by workers with the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office." http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_29.html#074765

On Tuesday morning at 8:55, The New Orleans Times-Picayune reported in their online breaking news weblog that FEMA will be providing 475 buses. Governor Blanco said that she wanted all the people evacuated within 2 days because of deteriorating conditions in the Superdome and other refuges. http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_31.html#075326 "Blanco said she wanted the Superdome — which had become a shelter of last resort for about 20,000 people — evacuated within two days, along with other gathering points for storm refugees." It appears that FEMA told her that the buses were on their way, as she said "We've sent buses in. We will be either loading them by boat, helicopter, anything that is necessary."

On Wednesday morning at 10 AM, "FEMA is providing 475 buses for the convoy and the Astrodome's schedule has been cleared through December for housing evacuees, a spokeswoman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry said." Around lunchtime on Wednesday, "Department of Social Services Secretary Ann Williamson said the buses should start rolling later Wednesday. About 475 vehicles have been arranged to ferry the evacuees to Houston." http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08_31.html#075326 These are more examples of the belief among both states' governors that the buses were well on their way. They were not very close though, either on Tuesday or on Wednesday.

Hours after the storm hit, FEMA promised buses. http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/091805/new_blanco001.shtml " Hours after the hurricane hit Aug. 29, the Federal Emergency Management Agency announced a plan to send 500 commercial buses into New Orleans to rescue thousands of people left stranded on highways, overpasses and in shelters, hospitals and homes. On the day of the storm, or perhaps the day after, FEMA turned down the state's suggestion to use school buses because they are not air conditioned, Blanco said Friday in an interview. Even after levees broke and residents were crowding the Louisiana Superdome, then-FEMA Director Mike Brown was bent on using his own buses to evacuate New Orleans, Blanco said. The state had sent 68 school buses into the city on Monday. Blanco took over more buses from Louisiana school systems and sent them in on Wednesday, two days after the storm. She tapped the National Guard to drive them. Each time the buses emptied an area, more people would appear, she said. The buses took 15,728 people to safety, a Blanco aide said. But the state's fleet of school buses wasn't enough. On Wednesday, with the FEMA buses still not in sight, Blanco called the White House to talk to Bush and ended up speaking to Chief of Staff Andy Card. "I said, 'Even if we had 500 buses, they've underestimated the magnitude of this situation, and I think I need 5,000 buses, not 500,'" Blanco recounted. "'But, Andy, those 500 are not here,'" the governor said.

Card promised to get Blanco more buses. Later Wednesday night, Blanco walked into the State Police Communications Center and asked if anyone knew anything about the buses. An officer told her the buses were just entering the state. "I said, 'Do you mean as in North Louisiana, which is another six hours from New Orleans?,'" Blanco recalled in the interview. "He said, 'Yes, m'am.'"

It was at that point, Blanco said, that she realized she had made a critical error. "I assumed that FEMA had staged their buses in near proximity," she said. "I expected them to be out of the storm's way but accessible in one day's time." It was late Wednesday. The buses wouldn't get to New Orleans until Thursday. By then, many of the sickest and the weakest were dead or dying."

{So, on Tuesday morning, Blanco believed that the buses were close to the city, and would be able to evacuate all those in shelters in 2 days. However, it was not until 2 days later, Thursday morning, that the buses promised by FEMA actually arrived.}

"I had security in the knowledge that there were 500 buses," she said. "Mike had emphasized the buses to me personally. That was not my first concern until I realized that they were not there." Meanwhile, the state continued to send school buses into the affected areas. One of Blanco's aides, Leonard Kleinpeter, said FEMA told him at one point that the state could stop sending school buses because the agency was going to bring in helicopters and use them instead of the commercial buses that still weren't there. Blanco told Kleinpeter to ignore those instructions. "She said, 'I'll be damned. You keep loading the wagons on the school buses,'" Kleinpeter said." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 13:59, 13 October 2005 (talk • contribs) 152.163.100.72.

How was the long-expected 30 feet of water over the city reflected in the plans? The intent was to move them to higher ground which would still to leave people dozens of feet underwater? (SEWilco 19:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC))
This was an interesting and illuminating article. What's really striking, though, is this quote from Nagin: "Keep in mind, we always assume that after two to three days the cavalry will be coming." The "cavalry" DID show up within two days - the morning after the storm passed, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army arrived with food and water for the evacuees in the Superdome and the Convention Center. They were turned away by state and local officials who didn't want the evacuees "setting down." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 15:28, 13 October 2005 (talk • contribs) Brendano.

This paragraph above is inaccurate and misleading. FEMA has told local emergency preparedness officials for years that they should hang on by their fingernails for 48-60 hours, up to a maximum of 72 hours, until *the calvary* arrives. The *calvary* is substantial FEMA help. The head of Orleans Parish's Emergency Management "Ebbert said he knew conditions in the Superdome would be "horrible," but Hurricane Pam had predicted a massive federal response within two days, and Ebbert said the city's plan was to "hang in there for 48 hours and wait for the cavalry." [2] Because of changes made in the 1970's, where the American Red Cross threatened to stop being the primary source for charitable assistance after disasters without further cooperation and additional promises of support if required from the Federal Government, the ARC *is* the organization of choice to set up shelters. [3][4] However, one of the misleading parts from the above paragraph is the implication that without the ARC and the Salvation Army being allowed to set up shelters, food and water was denied to people stranded in New Orleans. That is not a factually accurate assessment of the actual situation. The ARC decided about 10 years ago to remove ALL efforts to have storm shelters set up in both New Orleans and many surrounding parishes in the Mississippi Delta area of Louisiana because they could not guarantee the safety of their volunteer relief workers OR guarantee that the shelters would be safe from all threats from a natural disaster. [5] "No shelters within the city would be free of risk from rising water. Because of this threat, the American Red Cross will not open shelters in New Orleans during hurricanes greater than category 2; staffing them would put employees and volunteers at risk." The Red Cross had no shelters set up in Assumption, Jefferson, St. Bernard, or Orleans parishes. [6] According to the Federal Department of Homeland Security's National Response Plan, specifically Emergency Support Function Component #6[7], the ARC does not only provide shelters that will get people struck by disasters food and water, but they also are the organization that provides bulk shipment of those resources too. "Mass care services include the "sheltering of victims, organizing feeding operations, providing emergency first aid at designated sites, collecting and providing information on victims to family members, and coordinating bulk distribution of emergency relief items." The fact that no shelters were set up by the ARC did not prevent food and water being delivered to these people. In fact the Louisiana National Guard had food and water pre-staged at the Superdome. [8] FEMA provided food and water to the stranded residents from mid-week on, from truck deliveries to supplies dropped by helicopter. The ARC had food, water, and hygiene supplies staged and ready to go into the city. Those supplies could have gone into the city with the ARC if the city were inhabitable and there were no plans to evacuate those left in the city, or those supplied could have and DID go into the city with National Guard troops and FEMA rescue and disater recovery personnel. It is a distortion of the facts to suggest that without the physical presence of the Red Cross and/or the Salvation Army inside the city limits of New Orleans that people were left without food and water. The ARC had the food and water necessary to support these people before the storm ever hit. They have chosen for years to not staff any shelters in New Orleans because of the potential dangers during the storms. The Red Cross often moves into areas after storms have passed once those areas become safe - they wait until the winds have died down, for example, just as police and firefighters do not venture out in the midst of these storms. New Orleans never became a safe place to set up a shelter in the hours and days AFTER the storm hit. The levees and floodwalls started failing before Katrina's major winds had even hit New Orleans[9], and within 24 hours the leaders of the city and the state and the Army Corps of Engineers realized that they were going to be unable to stem the water, and as a result 80% of the city would flood and it would be days and weeks before they could remove that water. On Tuesday morning "The governor of Louisiana says everyone needs to leave New Orleans due to flooding from Hurricane Katrina. "We've sent buses in. We will be either loading them by boat, helicopter, anything that is necessary." Once that decision was made, the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, with the agreement of the American Red Cross, said that the ARC would not be setting up any shelters in New Orleans. It is fraudulent to suggest that they were turned away by state and local officials in any kind of unreasonable efforts. The Red Cross does not set up shelters in dangerous areas, per their own standards. The Red Cross does not set up shelters in areas that are to be evacuated. The lack of a Red Cross shelter did not mean that those people waiting to be evacuated were without food or water. There were supplies prepositioned at the site for those that came with nothing. There were clear directives from the city administration that people coming to the Superdome before the storm should bring supplies for a 3-5 day stay with them. "Residents are asked to bring food for 3-5 days, pillows, blankets, and any other supplies needed." [10] And FEMA and the National Guard delivered food and water during the aftermath of the storm until all the evacuees were removed from the sites. According to a Washington Post article on 9/10/05 [11], by Sunday "FEMA had already stockpiled for immediate distribution 2.7 million liters of water, 1.3 million meals ready to eat and 17 million pounds of ice, a Department of Homeland Security official said. But Louisiana received a relatively small portion of the supplies; for example, Alabama got more than five times as much water for distribution. "It was what they would move for a normal hurricane -- business as usual versus a superstorm," concluded Mark Ghilarducci, a former FEMA official now working as a consultant for Blanco." The food and water was in the region, and as such, the fact that no official Red Cross shelter was set up in New Orleans did not adversely affect the ability of people to receive supplies. It is the fact that FEMA did not get those supplies into the city in a timely fashion. They knew the storm was going to hit on Saturday, and as such they had plenty of lead-time to get the supplies in there after the storm passed, but they failed to do so, and it was because of that shortcoming and other mistakes that people really started suffering from Wednesday and beyond.


And in reply to SEWilco's suggestion that a complete flooding of New Orleans with the highest possible floodwaters would have left those in the SuperDome under water, it is not true. The Superdome is 20 stories high, and many of the seats would be above any potential water that could have filled the floor of the structure. [12] The Mayor and his spokemen strongly encouraged all that could go and would go to leave the city on Saturday and Sunday. They also told people that chose to go to the Superdome that they should bring 3-5 days worth of food, water and other necessities. Had people gone to the Superdome, and had the flooding been worse in the city, there still would have existed safe havens inside the Superdome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 17:14, 13 October 2005 (talk • contribs) 152.163.100.72.

I just got back, and promise to look at this shortly. Simesa 00:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Are the buses really this relevant? --Elliskev 00:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I made some fairly simple 'edits' to the bus info that was posted - it was removed because not enough documentation of the facts was included. The buses are NOT all that important. However, it IS important to NOT include lies and distortions, and there are quite a few included currently. My changes to the existing commentary about the buses was several deletions and a couple of changes to the partisan wording. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22:17, 13 October 2005 (talk • contribs) 152.163.100.72.

Hi all, I was the one who kicked off this whole discussion, and it's been a good one. But the offending text is still there. At the very least, we need to eliminate or rewrite the following: "Any licensed driver is suitable in an emergency. The bus situation was not lost on at least one New Orleans evacuee, Connie London, interviewed by ABC Reporter Dean Reynolds at the Reliant Astrodome. The evacuee cites the bus flooding as her major criticism of the performance of city and state officials in handling Hurricane Katrina." I think that the statement that any licensed driver is suitable in an emergency is POV. Similarly, the opinion of an evacuee about the bus situation is clearly POV. Can anyone explain to me why these aren't POV statements? If not, I will delete them. --140.247.243.99 05:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Nobody has stepped up yet to defend the POV discussion of the buses. Therefore, I deleted it. The section is still a mess, and could use some cleanup. --140.247.239.167 17:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, it looks like somebody has reverted my edits without comment. Apparently somebody really wants the POV section in there. But nobody will step up and explain why it's not POV. I'm going to remove the section again. If it gets reverted again, I give up. There's no point in trying to make this article neutral if other people are just going to revert without explaining why.--140.247.242.17 01:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Quote on Gulf of Mexico Sea-Surface Temperatures

  • World temperatures keep rising [13]
  • Climate data show 2005 on track to be hottest on record
  • By Juliet Eilperin
  • The Washington Post
  • Updated: 12:30 a.m. ET Oct. 13, 2005
  • "And a scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration determined that sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico were higher in August than at any time since 1890"

Simesa 01:31, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality?

In my opinion (B.A. from Spellman) this article is biased against African-Americans. I'd like to see some real facts instead of an article that looks like it was written by the Bush Admin.

Just my 2 cents (fitty) Reparaizins 20:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you cite specific instances? It's a fairly long article. Also, the vandalism you committed earlier on the article by writing "Bush hates blacks" into the article pretty much negates any respectability your claim will get regardless of any degree you claim to have. --Holderca1 20:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Also, the {{bias}} template implies that the ENTIRE article is biased; while sections of the article are definitely far from NPOV, other parts (the intro and first three sections) are about as NPOV as it gets. Can we really claim that stating that Hurricane Katrina spawned tornadoes reflects inherent bias? I don't think it does. The {{npov-section}} template, applied to whichever section(s) are off the mark, would be a better choice. - jredmond 21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Holderca1 — easy there. He's new, and NPOV has many nuances.
Just don't see how she can claim it is POV when she put the POV in there. --Holderca1 18:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

She even mispelled her alma mater. It looks like you should think before you write next time.

Quote: "Would there have been general acceptance of claims that hundreds of people had been killed in the New Orleans Superdome and Convention Center in the absence of stereotypical views of blacks?" I still believe sections should be neutrality disputed. Hopquick 06:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality regarding anarchists?

Quoting: "However, in the Algiers neighborhood of New Orleans the US military, FEMA, and the Red Cross are sending people needing help over to a tent set up by anarchists, dubbed the "Mayday Mutual Aid Medical Station," located in front of the Masjib Bilal Mosque."

where is anything supporting the description of these people as anarchists, of any sort?--Vidkun 15:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism that was missed. Found the changes, [14], [15], made by an anon without documenting it. I am deleting it from the article. --Holderca1 23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Be sure to check Google before deleting something from the article. I checked and lo and behold, there exists a Wikipedia article for Mayday Mutual Aid Medical Station. --Revolución (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina and the waves

Has anyone heard of the band, Katrina and the waves? They did the song, walking on sun-shine. Before it turned into such a desister, my co-worker came up with this headline. Katrina and the Waves hit the florida coast line. Their is no walking on sunshine. It was funny before Katrina hit, but we had no idea that it would be any worse than any other storm.

People have made plenty of Katrina and the Waves references with regard to this hurricane; it's not a new idea. *Dan T.* 17:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

this article is beautiful

Linking to Emergency and Disaster Management

This comment is not strictly relating to Hurricane Katrina, but by posting here I hope to find likeminded people. The well established academic fields of Disaster management and Emergency management are not (what I have seen) mentioned in this text. In addition, their articles are small and often incoherent. I am about to take on the task of improving this. It is however a huge task. I will try to set up a wikiproject for it. Post on my talkpage if you are interested. --Drdan 10:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush image

Despite the seriousness of this image of Bush in the article, I find its alternate meaning hilarious! The Wookieepedian 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if someone inserted it as a private joke although the image is the only one available without copyright that I can find (doing a quick search) of Bush's reponse to Katrina. - Cuivienen 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think that this should be removed... in a way, its a violation of NPOV, as this image has been used countless times on left-wing websites and blogs denouncing the President. Even though the capiton is being mis-interperted, because of the way this image is used in "the wild", it should be removed. Mr. Brown 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it matters very much, the alternate meaning isn't very obvious (I didn't notice until I looked for about a minute). --AySz88^-^ 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Removal of the pic actually helps the presentation: too many pictures in a relatively small area, created a "bottleneck" for the text. Removing the extraneous picture allows the paragraphs to stay together with no wide white sections. 147.70.242.21 19:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

for some reason I can't seem to add anything to most articles

http://www.wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=4227761&ClientType=Printable

--grazon 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

External Link to a White Supremacist Group

In the external links section of the article regarding the violence occurring shortly after hurricane Katrina there is only a single link, which leads to www.cofcc.org. The site no longer carries data on hurricane katrina and is more of a sounding board for white suprmacists than a legitimate news outlet. I'm not sure why it was included in the article.

Ricky -12/11/05

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/12/103853.shtml

Of the 883 bodies processed so far by medical examiners at St. Gabriel, 562 have been identified by race. Slightly less than half that number - 48 percent - are African-American. Forty-one percent are white, 8 percent unknown and 2 percent Hispanic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.188.97.92 (talk • contribs) 13:19, December 13, 2005 (UTC).

Section editing

I don't know how you did it, but why isn't section editing allowed? --Revolución (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. This page seems too long and many notes should be moved to subpages... CrazyC83 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I suspect vandals spot the little [edit]s faster than they see the "edit this page" at the top of the page. Perhaps it's a way to ensure people see the warning comment at the top of the article. --AySz88^-^ 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
The NOEDITSECTION tag is at the beginning. Good kitty 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
And it's history. It's too significant of an impediment to legitimate users. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've re-added the __NOEDITSECTION__ to the top, as AySz88 says, so that the vandals see the message about vandalising at the top. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
If the WP:AID bid passes, it should be removed, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Death Toll

The section on the death toll ends with a long paragraph ranting that congress, the president, the american public, etc. do not care about the possibility of more dead people still out there. They use phrases like "Soviet-style" to describe the government's supposed efforts to cover up the true number of dead. This section needs to be reworked to remove the biased language.66.244.115.245 01:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you saw might be gone now; the word "Soviet" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, so I can't figure out which paragraph you're pointing out.
Of course: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Again, thanks for your input! --AySz88^-^ 17:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy

This article is a good canidate for the new Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. --Stbalbach 20:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, just wait until it is implemented. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, interesting reading. What do you think for this article? --Stbalbach 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

I have proposed a merge from Hurricane Katrina and technology. That article has relatively little information and I don't think deserves its own article, at least yet. Could be covered under local effects. --DCrazy talk/contrib 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Merge. That article is useless on its own. Jdorje 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Katrina TC Report

Well, it doesn't look like anyone has posted it here, so I will: the NHC is done with the TC report for Katrina. Click here for the pdf and here to download the .doc file. I'm sure many of you already knew about this, but for those who don't, there it is. B1oody8romance7 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


Checking in, it appears that some of the conclusions of the report have been worked into the storm history.

However I don't think the comments on the surge were written with enough consideration...be careful how you interpret the information in the report on the surge, and what you put out there for public consumption. Be very, very careful, because of the problem we've had this year with what I call 'supersizing' hurricane intensity by the media and the general (uninformed) public. For one thing, that section in the report on surge information is incomplete and was clearly a little thin. Not all the HWM data is available yet (is there anyone with an in at the USGS that can get hold of it?...parts of their web site, including all the Katrina impact studies, aren't up, either). I checked the FEMA results for the MS Gulf Coast (LA isn't in yet) against the MS HES maps that encapsulate the SLOSH model results, and guess what. The surge was Cat 3 (this is important to understand: to go between the SLOSH results and the HWM and surge inundation, you have to translate using the elevation info; the category level of the surge is not a fixed number of feet, but varies from location to location based on the area's topology). Statistically speaking the areas that were Cat 4 or 5 are so small as to be almost insignificant (I'm only talking big picture, not saying they were not important, from other perspectives). So it is probably going to prove incorrect to overemphasize the Cat 4 / Cat 5 nature of the surge. The highest surge number, once wave action and tide are removed, will probably be around 25 ft or a little less. Katrina came in just a couple hours after high tide, which would be around 2 feet in most places, occured along the entire MS coast; this can be checked by looking at the 2005 tide tables. There is only one very small area of coastline that possibly, barely, reached Cat 5 levels, and only some very small areas of coastline with Cat 4 level of surge. I have the detailed info but want to wait on putting any of it out there until I see something more authoritative to go on than the FEMA results (which were, however, likely based on USGS info).

Yes, by looking at the MS Gulf Coast, we all know now what a solid Cat 3 can do, especially a large one that affects a very large area. Mkieper 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the Tropical Cyclone Report agrees that it was a Cat 3 surge enhanced by Cat 5 wave action - is this unclear in the storm history? --AySz88^-^ 17:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes...I think it is a little ambiguous and could read as if the majority of the surge was Cat 4 / 5. You may want to wait until some more data is in, but it probably wants clarification at some point as to whether there was any Cat 4 /5 surge, how significant it was, where it was. Actually the thing I think is remarkable about the surge is the tremendous scope of the Cat 3 surge, and how far east the Cat 3 surge went (it ran out, finally, inland just to the NE of the end of Pascagoula city limits, a few miles from the AL border). That's extraordinary. Because I didn't see much Cat 4 / 5 surge beyond small areas of the immediate coastline, I don't think there was a whole lot of 'enhancement' of the surge going on, overall (I think NHC was just keeping the options open until more data comes in), although I agree the wave action was clearly enhanced. The highest surge was clearly to the east of the eye at landfall so the key to that will be the analysis of the MS coast. However, the LA analysis ought to be very interesting, especially quantifying the effects of MR GO in enhancing the surge to St Bernard Parish and the Industrial Canal, and whether the Industrial Canal walls were overtopped (it is already clear that the wall failures at 17th Street Canal were due to poor construction). I also suspect very high waves over the ring levees from Venice to Buras, and want to know how much that contributed to the flooding of the ring levees, as opposed to the surge. Mkieper 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I have found out more info on the surge, from an excellent source. I just hope I can explain it without screwing it up! The wind-driven surge should have corresponded to Kat's winds at landfall, which were barely Cat 3. The fact that there were some small areas with Cat 4 level surge, and that the Cat 3 level surge extended so far, is due to another phenomena. While Kat was an intense Cat 4 and Cat 5 hurricane in the GOM prior to landfall, some of the wind energy was transferred into deep water, where it would not easily dissipate, similar to the type of energy that generates a tsunami wave. This additional energy generated the higher surge and the higher waves at landfall as well. I am not sure if this is substantially different from the reasoning provided in the report, "had already generated large northward-propagating swells, leading to substantial wave setup along the northern Gulf coast," or if I didn't have enough understanding of surge to conceptualize it differently. Basically the same thing that occured with Dennis where that one location in FL received a much higher surge than anticipated. Mkieper 15:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have the source available? --AySz88^-^ 00:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Protection

As per the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Semi-protection is not yet enabled in the software. I do not believe that the vandalism here is out of the ordinary nor persistent enough to warrant protection. Looking at the history, there are quite a few useful edits being done, and those would be lost if it were protected. I would suggest blocking individual IPs for vandalism instead. enochlau (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact you said "IPs" and not vandals proves my point that registration should be required. But nobody wants to listen to me, they just make up reasons why having anonymous IP users is somehow "beneficial". I know this may not be the right place for this, I just had to get it off my chest. --Revolución (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, forcing registration would actually give more privacy and anonymity to the vandals, unless more people get to see IPs of registered users. It's probably better for the vandals to not realize that registrating provides more anonymity. --AySz88^-^ 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism. NOEDITSECTION, etc

I've removed a misstatement of the blocking policy, and also the NOEDITSECTION directive that, it seems to me, can only be specifically and singularly intended to thwart legitimate attempts to edit an article. Vandals don't care, they'll just load the whole thing and blank it, or add some crap. The rest of us do value the ability to edit a section, and I don't see any good reason to penalize editors.

For a fairly accurate picture of the actual state of vandalism on this and other articles see this URL:

Specifically: here

This article's period of highest vandalism started soon after the NOEDITSECTION directive was added. Nobody has ever given me a remotely sensible explanation of why NOEDITSECTION would deter vandalism. It obviously doesn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The NOEDITSECTION was supposed to ensure that editors and potential vandals would see the notice at the top, which would in turn prevent vandalism. The small [edit] buttons are also potentially more visible than the large button at the top to new users in general. (Personally, I don't care which way it stays, the tradeoff is about equal to me.) --AySz88^-^ 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The warning not to vandalise has increased the vandalism. It gives vandals attention, which vandals seek, naturally. It's like putting up a sign "please do not paint graffiti here". It is a well proven fact, NY City or LA don't use anti-vandal notification signs, they don't work, if anything such signs degrade the neighborhood further, giving it an official stamp of "this place is crime ridden" which attracts criminals. --Stbalbach 05:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the rationale for having _NOEDITSECTION_ in the article. This is a 90kb article, and it's incredibly long, and the fact that _NOEDITSECTION_ doesn't allow one to edit by section makes it extremely difficult to find what you were trying to edit. So please don't put it back. --Revolución (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite - cleanup

This article is in serious need of a rewrite or massive cleanup. It's become a cruft accumulator of every POV on the Hurricane including those deprecated by the facts. -- Jbamb 23:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It hopefully will be featured on WP:AID, since it is a colossal task that requires as many hands as possible. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed wholeheartedly. We should move everything not related to the storm history, direct impact and other historical notes to separate pages. They are all definitely important and nothing should be deleted, but this was such a big story that it requires even more subpages. CrazyC83 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Don't forget to leave summaries behind (Wikipedia:Summary style)... --AySz88^-^ 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

new inline citation

check this out, might make our lives slightly easier. in particular with citing sources. This will probally be extremly useful in organizing the numerious references in this article.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

International Response

This section ends mid sentance (with a semicolon). Definitely needs to be reworked --SeanMcG 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph seems to have been made screwy through this edit. --AySz88^-^ 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Please read before you make such comments. The version before my edit wasn't that much better. It seemed more like a list in paragraph form. Many of the points were not in order. I admit, my edit did not fix everything, but please don't say I "screwed" it up. Thankyou.-- Steven 17:40, 2 January 2006

Sorry; it still seems like there's a chunk of text missing somewhere, though (maybe citations?), and the diff isn't working very well. Maybe using a bulleted list would be better?
What order did you put it in? --AySz88^-^ 17:56, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the section would make more sense, and become more meaningful if it were to be in a list format. But it would also mean that we would have to take out more information from each bullet so that it is organised. Currently, I tried to organize it into a paragraph, starting with some of the countries that donated money to the relief effort, then the countries that contributed things besides money, and finaly countries the USA openly rejected aid from. Note: I used only information that was available from previous edit, meaning that there probably are more countries that contributed. Making a list would mean we might need to list all of them.-- Steven 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

reference section

We need to organize the link section. I plan on using the new inline citation system. --ZeWrestler Talk 16:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • i've started the conversion. help will always be welcome. --ZeWrestler Talk 18:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I have converted a bunch more. It looks like the only remaining numbered inline links are in the death toll table. There are a few inline links left that are not numbered, as well. --Ajm81 10:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Good job. It appears that the ones within the table are party of a template. should it be converted, or should we leave it. --ZeWrestler Talk 15:27, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Annular Hurricane?

The page at Annular hurricane says that Katrina was one, but this page does not even mention the word 'annular'. Either that page is wrong (which is probably more likely), or someone needs to add the information about Katrina here. Anyone know what's up? Osgoodelawyer 15:14, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Googling "Katrina annular" produces many blog posts affirming that Katrina was indeed annular. However, the NHC advisories don't seem to mention it (the only appearance of the word "annular" on the entire website seems to be reports about Hurricane Epsilon) , and the TCR never said anything about Katrina being annular. (Personally, Katrina seems to be annular to me.) --AySz88^-^ 03:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The note at the top

This is the current Improvement Drive collaboration!
CAST YOUR VOTE for next week's article

This note is really bright and uneasy on the eyes. A person coming to look for information without any knowlege or intrest of Wikipedia would probably hate that note. Please change the colour or something. Thanks. -67.68.41.98 15:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Erm... thats new, never heard anyone get annoyed at the note before. But it is important to catch peoples attention, since then wikipedians then know to work on that article. Besides, a person without any knowledge of the people who help make Wikipedia such a great site should probably learn... --Steven 19:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the bar is great, but that color... sorry my friend, is HORRIBLE and ANNOYING.

The problem is the combination of what browser a person is looking at it, and the background color blotting out what the text is supposed to say, so that people with older eyes (I am over age 60) just cannot read whatever it is supposed to say, unless we print the page. I had hoped this issue would be addressed by Wikipedia:WikiProject Usability. User:AlMac|(talk) 20:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Maybe that letter put on there was vandalism...

Thanks to the person who removed it!!!


OW! My freaky deaky eyes!

That annoying purple banner

I hate the color of the banner, it makes the article look bad. I wish this banner got its color changed, because that color is... ANNOYING.

Annoying color, don't you think?

A suggestion: The bar can be kept, but with another color: maybe light orange or green.

This color is better
Agreed. I suggest maybe a note similar to
This article is the current U.S. Collaboration of the Week.

. I suggest the border at the bottom have a different color, in both {{UScur}} and {{AIDcur}}

--Tcwd 14:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I think is way better in blue, green or the other color that you suggested.

This article is the current U.S. Collaboration of the Week.

is pretty fine, but

Article Creation and Improvement Drive
 Hurricane Katrina/Archive 5 is the current Article Creation and Improvement Drive collaboration!

is worse than the other one.

The beige is better than the purple. SR - RE 18:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have a question

What does Improvement drive mean?--juan andrés 05:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It just means that, right now, lots of people are focusing on making this article better. See Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. --AySz88^-^ 05:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Intro section

The intro section of this article is entirely too long. The featured article criteria recommends 3 paragraphs at the most for the intro. Kaldari 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Would Katrina be get out of the list?

Wikipedia has a policy that speculations cannot be written in the article page, but here you can give your opinion. So, will Katrina be get out of the list for the 2011 Atlantic hurricane season? juan andrés 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It should be out, but we don't know... ...maybe it is, but I don't know.

I think this answer is fine, but I want a personal point of view--juan andrés 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think yes, for the consecuences that the hurricane did. sarah sofía

The WMO won't dare leave this on the list; it was one of the biggest weather disasters ever to hit the United States. Furthermore, I'm sure I've seen a discussion like this somewhere before... but I think it's archived now so no matter. (Sarah sofía, make sure you sign your posts with four tildes so we can be sure of who you are. Thanks!) -- Sarsaparilla39 22:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Will Katrina be retired? Absolutely. It's a no-brainer. CrazyC83 17:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The WMO retires every storm name when the storm is a Category 3 or higher and affects a land area. Sorry, I don't have a citation with me but I will try to find one and post it here. NWSMet 17:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That is absolutely not true; e.g., Hurricane Bret. — jdorje (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Correct, if a major hurricane makes landfall in the middle of nowhere and causes little damage, it likely won't have a good retirement case. (Although IMO if a Category 5 made landfall in the middle of nowhere, it should still be retired, but that's it) CrazyC83 17:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Link to Democratic Underground survivor's discussion forum

I am putting this back as I don't think a survivors forum, no matter where hosted, could possibly be linkspam. BenBurch 00:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


Introduction finally sumarized

The introduction of the article has been finally sumarized. Most of the information taken away was redundant and can be easily found in the article. Only essential info was left. juan andrés 00:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)Any question, commentary, agreement or complaint can be sent here

Juan, I reverted your changes, at the time assuming vandalism or misunderstanding of Wikipedia. Maybe the introductory section should be shortened some, but your changes caused the initial paragraph (specifically the last two sentences) to be unintelligible. Jpers36 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I took another shot at shortening the intro (which seems to have grown to be even longer), and split out the old intro into a new "Synopsis" section at the top of the article. The use of a synopsis in this way isn't great, but is necessary because the article is way too long. Jdorje 06:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Guitar Photo

Is there any way to please get this photo into the article?

Thanks!

[Image:Http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/jpg/Bush-guitar.jpg] The day after Katerina, President Bush posed for a photo-op with Country Western singer Mark Wills in Coronado, California. By the end of the week, Bush had decided to cut short his 5-week summer vacation and return to Washington. http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/index090505.html

NiftyDude 01:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It has to either be under a free licence or in the public domain for our use, and at first glance I don't think it is. --AySz88^-^ 02:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism by the Media

This should be added as a seperate subsection to the news media section, instead of being a (much too brief) note. JONJONAUG 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As this article is mostly about the hurricane and its effects, the media coverage might need to be split into another article anyway. --AySz88^-^ 21:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

How do we Clean up this Mess?

The Article is a mess I thick it should be split up. Any ideas on how though? Thanks. Lionheart Omega 20:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It's a lot better than it was; there are many articles abound that information can be moved to. CrazyC83 17:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
This article has been split six ways from Sunday and is still huge. If someone else can find a way to cut it down further, be our guest. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 22:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
It will be virtually impossible to split it to a manageable size unless we only include links to other sections (apart from the basic summaries)...after all, this is one of the largest pages ever created here. CrazyC83
I agree that the article is too long. It will take a vast amount of restructuring it to make it managable. However, I suggest we change it over to use the tried-and-true format for hurricane articles, with four main sections: Storm history, Preparations, Impact, Aftermath. Each of these will basically need a sub-article; we may end up with 2 levels of children since some child articles like Civil_engineering_and_infrastructure_repair_in_New_Orleans_after_Hurricane_Katrina may be too specific to even be mentioned in the main article. Even so, the amount of data here will put these separations to the test. Do "social effects" come under impact or aftermath? What about "international response"? What is the division between impact (immediate effects) and aftermath (long-term effects), anyway? Regardless of the answers to these questions, I believe it is possible to get the article down to a managable size. The goal should be about 30k. — jdorje (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I took the easy first step of condensing the storm history. — jdorje (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

"Too many cooks spoil the broth." This mess came about because everybody was editing the article at once, adding in new information wherever seemed best at the moment. The way to fix it is to have a small number of people go through and restructure the whole thing. Over the past week we've made it through the Storm history and Preparations sections; I just finished up catastrophically condensing the Preparations to the point where it's probably actually readible. (FYI, for those with this article on your watchlists, you might want to pay closer attention to the history since I often make multiple edits in quick succession.) Unfortunately, I'd say we're only 20-30% done with the whole thing, as the sections down below are much bigger and even more poorly organized. There is also the problem of proliferation of sub-articles. In my opinion the sub-articles should be distributed similarly to the top-level organization, so that by dividing the editors up among the sub-articles it should be possible to have many editors working at once without having overlap. Even so, many of the sub-articles do overlap or are too specific, so some of them probably need to be merged. — jdorje (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal

Perhaps one way to reorganize the content so that no one article is excessively long, is to create a Portal just for this topic, with each major thread becoming a new article from there. User:AlMac|(talk) 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's not the correct way to use portals. — jdorje (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Rather than a portal, more appropriately, in an effort to improve the Hurricane Katrina family of articles, a new project has been proposed:

Evolauxia 20:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Better. Though I'm not really sure why it should have a separate wikiproject. The purpose of a wikiproject is to provide guidelines and organization to make articles consistent. But Katrina articles aren't different than any other tropical cyclone; there are just more of them. Someday there will be another tropical cyclone that has a similar amount of sub-articles (Rita comes close). So what I'm saying is that any guidelines and organization you come up with is not specific just to Katrina. It will apply to other TC articles as well. — jdorje (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
There aren't many hurricanes that (even if they happened today) would warrant so many subpages. CrazyC83 06:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Has had killed

Hurricane Kartina has had killed more than 1,417 people than the current number being reported. 65.54.xxx.xxx 8 February 2006

Actually, the official number is 1,336. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the heavily biased "Performance of leaders" section

How has this travesty survived even the slightest of scrutiny? Anyone who can count to two can see the number of "leaders" excoriated in this highly partisan hit piece is... ONE. Further, the screed ridicules its victim for making jokes in the face of impending disaster, which carries over to making fun of just about every living person over the age of ten. To include this gratuitous claptrap while ignoring the well-documented and much more egregious failings of the Mayor and Governor is nothing more than indirect but barely disguised Bush-bashing... hardly the stuff of unbiased wiki work. 67.165.145.61 06:14, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments moved here from WP:IDRIVE

While this article was listed on WP:IDRIVE the following comments were made:

Comments
  • This is the kind of topical article that can give Wikipedia an edge over paper encyclopedias. Currently it's 100 kB long, so may need splitting. Walkerma 18:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I can't argue with that logic. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • There have been at least ten articles already peeled off of Katrina's article. I don't know that it can be split up much more. - Cuivienen 17:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
      • We have to, its so mind-bendingly large my browser is asking me for an asprin. -- Mac Davis ญƛ. 12:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • The information in the article isn't hard to find, and the vandalism on it has subsided for the most part now. It is time to clean it up, but it truly is a Cyclopean task... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please leave __NOEDITSECTION__ on, though. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 04:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Are you crazy?! It's a 100KB article and you don't want people to be able to edit individual sections? That is pure madness. --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I definitely support this. The poor thing has over 180 links. I can't imagine who is going to be in charge of converting all of those into numbered references. Shouldn't there be a way to automate this? --Cyde Weys votetalk 20:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, there's something on the talk page there about using the new <ref> and <reference> tags. --AySz88^-^ 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Recommendations by section

I've sent out a lot of recommended page moves, mainly to their local effects relative to the area, to condense this page... CrazyC83 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe leave a sentence-or-two mention behind as per Wikipedia:Summary style? --AySz88^-^ 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
The intro should be much shorter. Storm history, since much of it is in Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina. I vote yes for all of the merges. Hurricanehink 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm just debating about the "Tornadoes" section - should it be listed with all the other local impact, or as part of a new article, Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak? CrazyC83 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe both in the local impacts and as a section in Meteorological history.... --AySz88^-^ 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the shelters sections should be moved to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This article need more in formation about how Katrina impacted south florida!--HurricaneRo 21:04, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Todo

I put this article as a B for several reasons; sheer length or being a collaboration article does not guarantee an A. Some problems:

  • Intro is too detailed - it is longer than many articles. Maybe the intro should be shortened to 2 paragraphs and a separate "synopsis" section be given at the start (where other very important details can also be included).
  • Several sections have {{seealso}} or {{main}} without any text. This is very disorienting to the reader.
  • npov and merge sections indicate the article is not fully stable.
  • child pages are referenced heavily, but in many cases the child pages are inferior to the parent page which references them. In particular, some child pages are missing pictures and probably info that is provided in the parent page.

In short I find this article difficult to read straight through, yet the only synopsis is provided in the intro which is not long enough (yet still too long). Jdorje 23:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Katrina Downgrade

Do you think it should be said how a lot of people didn't agree with Katrina be downgraded in the TCR? Lionheart Omega 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

No. Jdorje 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
To clarify more, people "disagree" with it for no particular reason except that they feel a category 3 storm couldn't have been as damaging as Katrina was. They fail to take into account the size of the storm. Historically about half of the worst tropical cyclones - including the costliest and the deadliest cyclone worldwide - have been category 3 storms at landfall. It is a simple fact that as a Category 5 storm weakens, it does so by getting bigger, and in many cases this actually increases its potential for damage. Category 3 hurricanes are no joke. Jdorje 01:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Amen to that, brother. Also agree. The tropical cyclone article might benefit from info re: public understanding of SS scale and hurricane effects. DavidH 01:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The downgrade was generous...still 5-10kts higher than any obs. Videos (esp the Beau Rivage video - where visual wind speed obs from the video tally with the last Keesler AFB obs, which was taken during that time) confirm the moderate windspeeds. Regarding surge, recently talked with Stephen Baig at NHC and they concluded (as I did) the max surge at the MS landfall was Cat 4 level (only in a very small area mainly on the western side of St Louis Bay). Also from some analysis they did, it appears that about 2/3 of the surge was generated from the prior (higher) intensity level before Kat moved onto the shallow continental shelf. However, while the area of Cat 4 surge was very small, the Cat 3 level surge did go unusually far to the east. These conclusions are in no way meant to trivialize the unbelieveable scope of the surge damage along over 200 miles of coastline. Thanks to NHC personnel for being accessible and generous with their time in spite of still being extremely busy this spring. Mkieper 18:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Death toll

Okay, I don't know where this stupid 1,417 figure came from or who keeps inserting it, but it's really getting on my nerves. The official death toll from the National Hurricane Center is 1,336 without any suggestion of a figure much higher. Editors: please help me keep a sharp eye out for it. To the person inserting the figure: Please stop. Unless you have a reliable source (I:E not some blog), leave it out of this article. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, I believe someone else had already fact-checked 1,417, which included indirect deaths further inline. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The NHC figure is not accurate because that document is very old. They say this in the TCR. However, we do have to be very careful to cite sources for anything we add that's not in the TCR. — jdorje (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
The actual death toll will likely never be known. I'd go with the highest number if there are conflicts. Always keep a plus sign or note after the number, since it is probably higher. CrazyC83 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, if there is doubt the lower number should be used, with the qualifier "at least" (that is, assuming the lower number is from an up-to-date, reliable source) Runningonbrains 08:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Just corrected two very slight grammar mistakes. User: Ribbit, 3 March 2006

In addition, I'm increasing the Louisiana and total death tolls based on changes to the original source [[16]] Runningonbrains 08:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I just have yet to see an official source stating "1,604 people have died as a result of Hurricane Katrina as of..." -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 23:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

missing

Is the number of missing listed still accurate or is the 2,300 listed by the find family center correct. This seems to suggest the 2,300 number is correct.--Lastexpofan 02:47, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations

What a great article - well done everyone who's contributed. Springald 19:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

what category??

The article says different things in various locations... the hurricane was category 1, 3, and 5. So which one is it? Maybe start a new paragraph that discusses why it is dificult to classify or why it falls under various categories?--Sonjaaa 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Category 1 when it hit Florida, it reached a peak intensity of Category 5, and it made landfall in Louisiana as a Category 3 hurricane. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Largest hurricane

Numerous places (including the article) say that Katrina was the "probably the largest hurricane of its size ever recorded" or "the largest hurricane of its strength ever to strike the United States". While the intent of this statement is simply to convey something that is obviously true - Katrina was an insanely huge storm that was 10x bigger than most Category 5 hurricanes - it is also very misleading because records for hurricane size go back less than 10 years, though even within this timeframe there have been several storms - including Ivan and Floyd - that were close to (but still smaller/weaker than) Katrina as they approached the U.S.

In much older storms it is very hard to determine the size of the storm. However, the 1947 Fort Lauderdale Hurricane at landfall had slightly stronger winds than Katrina and was reported to have hurricane-force winds extending outwards 120 miles. The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane when it struck Puerto Rico at Category 5 strength supposedly brought hurricane-force winds to the southeast end of the island for 18 hours while moving at 13 mph, indicating a radius of about 115 mph (slightly larger than Katrina while it was a Cat5); even more impressive is that a 160 mph wind reading was taken about 50 miles from the storm's center. There is, of course, no way to verify the accuracy of these claims.

Which brings me back to my original point: making any absolute claims is a bad idea, since records on tropical cyclones do not go back very far at all. And adding the "ever recorded" qualifier is similarly misleading because it doesn't indicate just how short the recorded history is. These are just my thoughts on the matter; I don't particularly think we need to change the article.

— jdorje (talk) 04:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Missing Mississippi Gulf Coast Information

Although I am not an author myself. I believe that an entire section for this Article is missing. Entire towns in Mississippi were wiped off of the face of the earth. Look up Bay St. Louis and Waveland, MS. Not to mention the Economic factors that MS felt as the entire Guld Coast Casino Industry was devestated and the thousands of jobs that went with them. Biloxi, Gulfport, Pass Christian, amongs other cities still have hundreds of people living in tents, homeless, and displaced yet it appears that this area has been simply passed over with only an Honorable Mention. --John, Ocean Springs, MS

The current structure of the article is absolutely terrible. The section on impact is given over mostly to information about rioting. — jdorje (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Highest Death Toll is 2,000

NPR(?) admitted it in their story, several weeks ago is Hurricane Katrina killed more than 1,000 people than the current number, what about the ABC News figure of the dead?

65.54.xxx.xxx 27 February 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.54.98.108 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source? Pobbie Rarr 23:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I am the current source for the Hurricane Katrina Death Toll in the Hurricane Katrina article on Wikipedia. I have been keeping track of the death toll for months. There is no support at all for a figure of 2,000 deaths for Katrina. My lastest total is 1,422, and even that is controversial (some think it is high by ~60 deaths or so.Robert Lindsay 09:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)(talk)

Warnings

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//video/2006/03/01/VI2006030101864.html a video to add somthing maby.134.29.190.152 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be added. I added the equivalent of the above and User:Muffuletta made a nice link refence edit that looked like this:
On 1 March 2006, the Associated Press released a government video that showed Bush and Chertoff both were notified fully of the danger by Brown.[1]
It was then removed by a user:Derek.cashman for some unknown reason. He seems to be doing a lot of edits, the end effect of which seems to be to continually revert to some previous state and obscure the changes made.--Halliburton Shill 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

celebrity casualties

I think a section or article should be created listing famous people hurt or killed by the storm. --Ted-m 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Why?

Article clean-up

I just cleaned up this article, mainly formatting and reorganizing the references using the Wikipedia:Footnotes format. Please use this format when adding references and citations to the article. Additionally, I found that many external links that were being used as references were dead (e.g. 404 not found). To help prevent this problem in the future, it would help if editors would not only put the link in the ref tags, but also put the author's name, article title, publication source, as well as the date of publication. That way, if the link goes dead, we have a hope of possibly tracking it down in the future.

The article itself was also rearranged a bit and parts were merged with other Katrina-related articles. I also rewrote the section on looting to **hopefully** adhere to NPOV standards (hence, the NPOV tag has been removed. Dr. Cash 03:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm against your moving of the death toll to a seperate article. Death tolls of major events have always remained in the main article, this should be no different. NSLE (T+C) at 03:23 UTC (2006-03-12)
I agree the death toll should be included in the main article, but the table that was here was way too detailed. — jdorje (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
This is exactly the reasons for moving the table to a separate article (linked). The table as it was, was too large and was creating issues with the text being displayed on the same page (I have a very large widescreen 24" monitor with a resolution of 1600x1200, and even on that the text was being displayed funny; imagine what it would look like to someone using a small 15" CRT with 800x600 resolution). I still feel that the death toll text itself should be included on the same page. Perhaps the solution might be to rename the article Hurricane Katrina death toll to Hurricane Katrina death toll table, or something similar. Dr. Cash 03:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I think I solved this now. I moved the table to Hurricane Katrina death toll by locality, and removed more or less everything but the table itself and a link back to the Hurricane Katrina article. I also moved the 'main article' link that was at the top of the Death toll section to a 'see also' link at the bottom of the section. Dr. Cash 03:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Link Corrections

[17] refers to an article (apparently printed only) that is dated as 2006-09-26. I'm guessing that either should be 2005 or 02-26.--Halliburton Shill 06:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I guess September 26, 2006, has not occured yet. This has been fixed. Dr. Cash 08:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Civil War

According to the Civil disturbances and military action in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina article, There were reports of sniper fire and shootings across the city from September 4 to September 7. Does that indicate that a brief civil war had taken place during the clean up after Katrina? (I maybe wrong) Storm05 18:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

  • No. A few guys with rifles and the intent to cause havoc through crime does not make a civil war. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, yeah. I agree here. That is not a civil war. I also have not heard any legitimate news sources making reference to a 'civil war' here, either. Dr. Cash 22:43, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • That's not even as much of a civil war as the secession of the Conch Republic. — jdorje (talk) 02:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I said it wrong, what I meant was, did an insurgency take place after Katrina. Storm05 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Insurgency?!?! Please!!!! Whatever happened in New Orleans, I certainly wouldn't call it anything that nearly resembles anything organized, like a civil war or an insurgency (see wiki article: "organized rebellion"). The looting the civil disorder that occurred in New Orleans was more or less random and unorganized. Dr. Cash 19:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)