Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 5

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Looting and Violence

message: *World temperatures keep rising 
*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)
thread_title:  Quote on Gulf of Mexico Sea-Surface Temperatures 

message: 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)
replies: text: Looks like vandalism that was missed.  Found the changes, , , made by an anon without documenting it.  I am deleting it from the article.  --Holderca1 23:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality regarding anarchists? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Katrina and the waves 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Linking to Emergency and Disaster Management 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Bush image 

message: http://www.wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=4227761&ClientType=Printable
--grazon 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  for some reason I can't seem to add anything to most articles 

message: I don't know how you did it, but why isn't section editing allowed?  --Revolución (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea. This page seems too long and many notes should be moved to subpages... CrazyC83 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)

text: The NOEDITSECTION tag is at the beginning. Good kitty 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And it's history.  It's too significant of an impediment to legitimate users.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  If the WP:AID bid passes, it should be removed, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section editing 

message: This article is a good canidate for the new Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. --Stbalbach 20:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, just wait until it is implemented. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, interesting reading. What do you think for this article? --Stbalbach 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: Merge.  That article is useless on its own. Jdorje 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: 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:
* http://tools.wikimedia.de/~tony_sidaway/cgi-bin/vandalism.cgi
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)
thread_title: Vandalism. NOEDITSECTION, etc

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Don't forget to leave summaries behind (Wikipedia:Summary style)... --AySz88^-^ 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite - cleanup 

message: 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)
thread_title: new inline citation 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Annular Hurricane? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The note at the top 

message: 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 .  I suggest the border at the bottom have a different color, in both  and 
--Tcwd 14:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  That annoying purple banner 

message: What does Improvement drive mean?--juan andrés 05:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I have a question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Intro section 

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

text: That is absolutely not true; e.g., Hurricane Bret. — jdorje (talk) 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Would Katrina be get out of the list? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Link to Democratic Underground survivor's discussion forum

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Introduction finally sumarized 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Guitar Photo

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Yellow Journalism by the Media 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that's not the correct way to use portals. — jdorje (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than a portal, more appropriately, in an effort to improve the Hurricane Katrina family of articles, a new project has been proposed:
*Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Hurricane_Katrina
*User:Lithogliff/Katrina
Evolauxia 20:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: There aren't many hurricanes that (even if they happened today) would warrant so many subpages. CrazyC83 06:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Has had killed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding the heavily biased "Performance of leaders" section 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Yes, there's something on the talk page there about using the new <ref> and <reference> tags. --AySz88^-^ 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved here from [[WP:IDRIVE]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe leave a sentence-or-two mention behind as per Wikipedia:Summary style?  --AySz88^-^ 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Maybe both in the local impacts and as a section in Meteorological history.... --AySz88^-^ 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the shelters sections should be moved to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 02:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendations by section 

message: 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  or  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)
thread_title: Todo

message: 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)
replies: text: No. Jdorje 01:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Katrina Downgrade

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Death toll 

message: 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)
thread_title:  missing 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: what category??

message: 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)
thread_title:  Largest hurricane 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Mississippi Gulf Coast Information 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Highest Death Toll is 2,000 

message: 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)
thread_title:  celebrity casualties 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:   Link Corrections 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe I said it wrong, what I meant was, did an insurgency take place after Katrina. Storm05 18:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Civil War