Talk:Hurricane Camille/Archive 1

message: I've heard from some very official, trustworthy sources (ie, EVERYWHERE) that there was a hurricane party and that only one did survive the hurricane. This is the only place where I've heard that the "Hurricane Party" was an urban legend. bob rulz 12:39, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
:You can go tell Duckworth that he's dead or lying then. The reason the story sticks around is that it's a really good story. There's one person who says they were the only survivor of the party, and at least two others who say she's full of shit, and the only actual research I've ever seen done on the thing agrees with the "full of shit" assessment. -- Cyrius|✎ 05:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above, the story is true.  The location was Pass Christian. -- Chr.K. 22:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The matter was mentioned in a work published by the NOAA itself, the Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Cyclones (so far as I remember the name...will hereafter check it out once more to be certain), as one of the foremost examples of blatant human stupidity in the face of mind-numbing natural power, and the questions it raises (along with those who stayed during Katrina, for instance) as to how much freedom governments should allow their citizens in the face of the possibility of near-certain annihilation of entire regions. The Hurricane Party story, if true, should definitely be in the article; it asks us whether totalitarian coersion on the part of our leaders might sometimes be a good thing. --Chr.K. 02:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party? 

message: My question is what are compact hurricanes? Is it big? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irfanfaiz (talk • contribs) 
:I suppose knowing what the word compact means helps. --Golbez 02:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In this case, wouldn't it mean a small and well organized (and intense) hurricane? Icelandic Hurricane #12 19:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if we can talk about it in any official way "compact hurricanes" isn't an designation its just a normal English adjective added to it, which is used to describe small intense storms (Camille, Cyclone Tracy....)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Compact" would be a reference to what the Miami Sun-Sentinel called Hurricane Andrew, in an article in a special edition of the newspaper published August 22, 1992. Studies of the impact of compact hurricanes like Andrew, or wide-sweeping ones like Camille or Katrina, are also in numerous, disparate locations; and yes, I am stating that calling Camille a compact hurricane is not accurate. Basically the difference is that Andrew devastated very specific regions, but left others comparatively nearby untouched, in likewise comparison to wider-diameter cyclonic systems. --Chr.K. 03:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are compact hurricanes? 

message: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html
http://www.geocities.com/hurricanene/hurricanecamille.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~littlerosie/camille.html
found some sources to help you add more info in the CAmille article 
Storm05 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact

message: I remember seeing a discussion on this somewhere else (cant remember where for the life of me)...Hurricane pronouns should be gender-neutral.  It is like this in every other tropical cyclone, Camille should be no different.Runningonbrains 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's right, read the article on neutercane for a quick description of a consequence of how it was done. The usage of female names was originally meant in the same way as referring to ships as "she", but the negative connotations meant the current alternating male/female naming was introduced.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper terminology 

message: In the peer review I put the article up for, it was suggested that the trivia either be merged or deleted. But I don't think I could do either, so should I create an article titled Hurricane Camille Trivia or something like that. Icelandic Hurricane #12 21:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No need. The comparisons section could be its own section (though I personally think it should be removed. Any storm can be compared to another, but you don't see the comparisons section in another TC article, with the exception of Betsy as another Katrina comparision). The naming could be its own section along with records entitled "Naming and Records". The hurricane party could be part of the impact section in a subsection of Mississippi. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. Thanks. Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 15:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: I just completed converting to the  template for references and noticed a rather large section of the article is commented out. Anyone know why? TimL 03:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Large Section commented out

message: I have removed text copied from http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/camille/report.html and will work to summarize it to get the Aftermath section up and running again. TimL 00:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I was doing; my style is just a little different from yours. But the copied text could not be directly viewed. Plus the 4 or five paragraphs were rewritten to a certain degree, so can't those be returned? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 00:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They didn't look re-written to me, just a few word replacements here or there. I think we should do better than that, but feel free to put them back in if you feel they are sufficiently re-written. I am far from an authority on the matter, but I don't think what is there constitutes as "reading something and re-writing it in your own words", which is I tihnk the guideline that applies here. What I did when I wrote the Dvorak technique was read a bunch of articles and then created the article from scratch, looking up my references when I need help with what I was trying to say. Regards, TimL 00:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of copied text

message: I rewrote the aftermath section. But there is more to go in there and the "Mitigation" section from the "Camille: Thirty Years after" report has some more good stuff. Also, I only used that one source. Other sources could be integrated. TimL 05:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. And what does Mitigation mean? Doesn't have to do with preparing for a storm or something like that? Icelandic Hurricane #12(talk) 11:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the most signifigant results of the aftermath of Camille was mitigating the damage caused by a future event. New codes were implemented, etc. So, in other words, the aftermath affected the rebuilding effort. I suppose it might be worth mentioning Katrina as part of the aftermath of Camille, in that it doesn't seem many lessons were learned. TimL 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: todo

message: Seems to fit all the criteria fine, one might argue that it could fail NPOV because of language like "Catastrophic" but you know, its a hurricane, to delete that would make it pretty factually wrong, the MoS seems followed and the article seems well-written, it looks broad enough to me for a hurricane, there are indeed plenty of pictures, it seems stable, and although I do see a good bit of unreferenced looking statements which I think really need to be worked on, it seems fairly well referenced overall. I see no reason why this shouldn't be a GA, just try to work more on referencing everything for the future. Homestarmy 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Catastrophic" is the actual word taken directly from the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale as its description of damage accrued on the coastline by the landfalling of a Category 5 hurricane.  "Mind-boggling" would be POV; Catastrophic is the NOAA term itself. It doesn't say so on the site, but I've seen it written in several books from the 1980s and '90s. --Chr.K. 10:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ga Status

message: I know Camille is easily the strongest landfall in US, and probably North American, history. Has any other tropical cyclone, anywhere, made landfall with 190mph winds? If not, then we can basically say that Camille was the strongest storm to ever hit land. --Golbez 20:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but I doubt Camille struck at 190 mph. Storms in the northern Gulf of Mexico just seem to weaken a lot before making landfall (Katrina, Dennis, Ivan, Lili). Back on topic, though, I would imagine that some strong WPAC typhoons have made landfall, given how warm the temperatures are. In fact, Joan of 1959 supposedly hit Taiwan with 185 mph winds. Storms further southeast, like in the islands of Micronesia, likely have been hit before with 190 mph. Of course, the biggest problem is that not too many storms have had winds of 190 mph or more. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Only Tip, (Typhoon) Keith, Camille and Allen are recorded as reaching 190 mph winds, and only Camille made landfall with that wind speed. So yes, in terms of wind speed, assuming that the data are correct, Camille was the strongest landfalling tropical cyclone anywhere ever recorded. —Cuiviénen 15:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't do that. I don't think there is any reliable landfalling data. And if you go by wind damage alone, wasn't Andrew much worse? I guess I disagree with the statement "Camille is easily the strongest landfall anywhere in the U.S." I think it implies we have more knowledge about the ground truth of Camille than we really do. TimL 02:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrew was worse but far weaker (165 mph v 190 mph). Camille just wasn't very large, and Andrew hit a big city. Plus, the intent of Cat 5 being the upper end of the SS Scale is that, beyond 155 mph, it doesn't matter how much stronger the winds get: everything is being destroyed anyway. Also, we can't use the data in the article and then decide that it isn't reliable. Unless the NHC decides otherwise in the future, Camille made landfall with 190 mph winds. (It isn't as unrealistic as it sounds; Camille was very compact, so damages were limited, and the Eddy Vortex of the Loop Current occasionally extends all the way to the coast, as thought that it did during Camille.) —Cuiviénen 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Cyclones, in its rather massive article, identified the final Camille overflight, inside four or so hours out from landfall, recording gusts reaching 210 mph. --Chr.K. 10:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strongest landfall anywhere? 

message: It looks like AccuWeather is starting to use our articles for a source, as well. From today's weather news section:
The drenching downpours will stay south of west-central Virginia, where 37 years ago, the remnants of Hurricane Camille dropped 27 inches of rain on August 20th over Nelson County. According to Wikipedia Encyclopedia (with link), more than 10 inches of rain deluged the mountainside slopes between Charlottesville and Lynchburg in just 12 hours. The resulting flash flood and mudslide killed 153 people. Throughout Virginia and also West Virginia, the remains of the strongest land-falling tropical cyclone worldwide destroyed 349 homes and caused just over $140 million.
Just thought this was worth mentioning. It's amazing to see how many official weather agencies are starting to cite our tropical cyclone articles. bob rulz 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, and nice job everyone! Hurricanehink (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't there a template for articles that have been cited by a news agency? Ahh... yes. I found it at Talk:Hurricane Dennis. Is there an online version of this AccuWeather bit we can link to? —Cuiviénen 03:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if there is an archive for AccuWeather I haven't found it yet. The link to it would just link to the current front page news story...bob rulz 04:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AccuWeather cites this article

message: Shouldn't Camille be a must-have for Wikipedia v1.0?  I mean, before Katrina, Camille was THE hurricane due to its catastrophic loss of lives and modern impact.  Not even Andrew or 1900 Galveston were more talked about. --Kitch 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you should upgrade it, but I would get more opinions first. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on a must-have. If you can only choose 3 hurricane-related articles, Camille might not be in the top 3. I think the high designation suffices, especially if Andrew remains a high. IMO, Andrew was talked about more than Camille before Katrina as the big one. Andrew had the damage, and the memorableness. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Remember though, you should have a Top 5 Tropical Cyclone Wikiproject list, which would have to include non-storm articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: What about Mitch? bob rulz 01:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but you had the wrong impression. The class system is for articles in the entire Wikiproject, so top class is only allowed for a very minimal amount of articles. Hurricanehink (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I get your point...actually, I was mistaken about the whole conversation (long story, no caffein, etc.)  Long story short, ignore what I said.  I do agree with making a few storms of Top Importance, but this should be a long discussion, and on the Wikiproject Talk page. Runningonbrains 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooh, re-reading what I said, I'm sorry if I sounded mean. Yea, I suppose maybe we should bring it up on the Wikiproject page. Importance is subject, after all. Hurricanehink (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, no prob.  I'm the one who cant read :) -Runningonbrains 04:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something of note for those who for some reason want to rank noteworthiness according to the amount of deaths that result from it: Camille and Allen are the only two recorded Atlantic basin hurricanes to achieve sustained winds in excess of 190 mph (if Camille was that low at the end). Likewise, Camille taught meteorologists many things about hurricane dynamics that they had previously not realized, at least if the National Weather Service's Encyclopedia of Hurricanes, Typhoons and Tropical Cyclones has anything to say about it.  Katrina didn't bring as much new scientific information to the table, with the possible exception, on the anthropological level, of the hard-nosed stubbornness of humans in keeping a city of theirs in an idiotic location, due to emotional connections, even after a catastrophe of such devastating proportions. To put it another way...if Katrina had hit New Orleans dead-on with Camille's intensity...there would be no New Orleans. --Chr.K. 08:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Upgrade to top importance 

message: I think that the people that lived there should have been put on a train and excorted out of there towns. If they would have did this less people would have died.I know it took them a long time to rebuild their houses and find a job. I think this hurricane was related to Hurricane Katrina because the people could have been saved but noone tried to do anything to help them.
:That's nice. This is not a blog about the hurricane, though, especially not 40 years after the fact. --Golbez 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does bring to mind the Hurricane Party subject, for this article, and discussions that have doubtless been had about it as to whether martial law should be instituted in such cases, to force them to leave.  Look what happened when they didn't, in New Orleans, in '05. As mentioned higher up on this page, the Hurricane Party subject should definitely be in. --Chr.K. 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hurricane Camille 

message: http://www.nationalgeographic.com/forcesofnature/interactive/index.html?section=h
On the right side, in the Case Studies section, it is the first reference. I would think National Geographic would do its research, and be a viable source for the material...especially as they identify where the survivor did indeed end up. --Chr.K. 10:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence of the hurricane party