Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 3

message: - CNN now says explicitly it's not looting, nor unrest, it is "urban warfare". The use of iraq war veteran NG troops and people shooting at helicopters, when can you say it is a civil war or a mutiny or even a revolution?
:When it is an organized movement with the aim of overtoppling the gouvernment. A mob does not make a revolution.--Stephan Schulz 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Because he is not an idiot. Guantanamo as a piece of soil is mostly worthless to him. Guantanamo as a source of propaganda is useful. Getting Guantanamo back amidst negative publicity is worth than useless for him. Moreover, the US is not seriously weakened by Katrina, so there is not reason to assume he would be successful. (None of the above should be constructed to believe that I believe the lease of Guantanamo is legal or that the Gulag on Guantanamo is not an insult to both humanity and law).--Stephan Schulz 09:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Fidel Castro in fact acted and offered doctors and medicines. Mardus 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The federal government is so clueless about the situation, that they are flying U2 spyplanes over the area to make high-res footage. The planes were reported seen by bloggers and confirmed by CNN. Of course it will take days to evaluate the aerial reconnaisance and that will be too late many will die meanwhile.
::Friday September 2 water cooler talk around the nation was livid is my call.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lockheed U-2 Flies at around 70,000 ft, roughly twice the altitude of commercial jets while considerably smaller in size and profile.  Even if these bloggers were looking for it (and knew when and where to look), they would likely need binoculars to both pick it out and identify it as a U-2.  Unless the bloggers in question were part of the flight or ground crew of a U-2 ordered to reconnoiter the Mississippi Delta, I'd personally prefer to wait until I see this CNN confirmation you mention.David Iwancio 24.110.195.131 17:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  You too 

message: It should be noted somewhere in the article that those most affected, stranded and dying are poor people of color, the sick and the elderly as those groups didn’t not have the means or ability to evacuate before the storm hit. 
Added to "effect" section--Fluxaviator 12:37, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't like to be anyone in this situation. Tourists cannot get out. Also the so called middle class are not working, and having to stay with families and pets in other cities, and going through their savings very fast. I hope everyone is insured! It is not fun for anyone.  Leistung 12:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think there's many people who are going to be formerly middle class within weeks. BTW, has anyone heard that hotels in Tallahassee are planning on kicking out refugees to make way for the FSU-Miami football game?  --YoungFreud 13:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: The BBC have cited this article here. (Sorry, I don't recall the correct template to use for this; please feel free to delete this comment when it's been added.) Andy Mabbett 13:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I followed your link and I didn't see a citation there.  I did see the article listed under "RELATED INTERNET LINKS", but I'm not sure if that qualifies. --timc | Talk 14:45, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cited by BBC

message: I put over an hour into refactoring that last night.  It would have been *nice* not to cut it without at least discussing it.--Baylink 15:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All but one of the streams is dead, and the working one isn't even discussing the hurricane! If you'd bothered to look at the edit history you would have seen I stated this in the summary that removed it. I put a lot of work into trimming the externals and I specified why each single one was removed.... and if it really took you an hour, consider it time well invested in learning how to use wikipedia tables. I would have expected with that level of time investment you would have actually checked to see if they were still relevant! 24.165.233.150 17:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did check; they are working; they are relevant; and your snotty (and incorrect) comments about "IP only posters" (I am clearly not IP only, and I've been doing this for over a year) aren't well taken.  I am, once again, putting it back in; I'll thank you to take it up with an administrator before feeling the need to cut it again, because if you don't, I will.  Oh, and sign up.--Baylink 18:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Baylink, you've violated 3RR on this article inserting your externals several times. I wasn't refering to edits made by your account, but rather edits made by the open proxy at: User_talk:83.197.66.79. I presume this wasn't you. The links don't actually work, though I see you changed one of them so I'll check them again.  I really don't appricate your commanding and agressive attitude. 24.165.233.150 18:48, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The objection to the comment, as I understand it, was that you were implying to other users that they were not permited to edit your text. That isn't the wikiway and it isn't needed. As you can see, I've left your work alone for now. I'm glad that you took the time in IRC to explain your position, even though I still don't agree with it. --24.165.233.150 23:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Who cut the stream table without discussion?'' 

message: Some of the original text about city officials being accused of racism:
:This has lead to calls of racism from city officials...
My initial unsaved change was this:
:This has lead to accusations of racism on the part of city officials..."
And then I wasn't sure whether my correction considerably improved the language. The final wording was this:
:This has led to city officials being accused of racism,..."
-- Mardus 07:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Race issues

message: ABC news reported the area of damage was 90,000 square miles. This sounded high to me, but I added it in, hoping maybe someone would confirm with another source.
I checked to day and someone had changed it to 180,000 square miles, which I know can't be right. That would be the UK times two!
I would love for someone to find another source on this.
What is the amount of area that sustained major damage?
Using a liberal calculation of going 150 miles inland by 400 miles wide computes to 60,000 square miles. I guess you have to add south Florida, but how big of an area there sustained major damage?
60k seems at the high end of what must be right, 90k extremely liberal, and 180k just way off.
:I think originally it was set to 90k, incidentally, by the same person who removed the Criticism section. I hadn't changed it back because I thought this was new information and then the metric measurement was changed, lending more credibility.--YoungFreud 16:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's inappropriate to use the term "major damage" or "area of damage". The Federal Disaster Declarations cover an area 90,000 sq. mi., but that covers two levels of federal assistance being made available, rather than any expert assessment of the scope of the storm. In all counties, public entities such as police and fire departments can apply for federal monies to defray any extra-budget costs they incur. In a select number of counties, though, individuals and businesses can also apply. It is these counties that sustained "major damage" and they are a much smaller area. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The figure comes directly from the White House, so it has an official source.  --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Area affected? 

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

message: It's looking like FEMA had a private company called Innovative Emergency Management, or IEM, develop a "Catastrophic Hurricane Disaster Plan" for dealing with this crisis. You can read they're June 2004 press release here .
They were apparently very proud of this fact as it was displayed on their main page , . I'm having to use Wayback Machine links, because apparently IEM are now trying to cover this fact up. . Screenshots of the original press release page and after it was edited on Sept. 2nd --YoungFreud 19:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, your screenshots are inaccessible, but I can't see what's significant about this. They were hired to develop a plan, but was it ever completed? At this point, it's obviously moot. --Dhartung | Talk 19:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The plan was conducted in exercises in 2004, know as the Hurricane Pam exercise. They basically conclude that Louisiana is now "much better prepared for a catastrophic hurricane". . Of course, Hurricane Pam was a Cat 3 storm. --YoungFreud 20:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, YoungFreud, I believe it was in the monies cut earlier this year , which included a "study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane" which "has been shelved for now". I believe the study being shelved is why IEM removed the press release from their site, not any great "cover up" as you suspected. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That's the problem there. ALL such exercises should be for a Category 5 storm, at the level of Hurricane Gilbert (190 mph/305 km/h) or higher. Even in areas where such is unlikely (i.e. the northeast US), they shouldn't be catching themselves off guard in case that extreme event happens. CrazyC83 21:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CrazyC83: Hindsight is 20/20. They probably should not have cut these funds, but then they should have been planning for a Category 5 -- at least as a worst-case scenario -- years and years ago, an oversight that is not attributable to any one administration or government entity. And the flip side is that that costs money, which is in competition with other policy needs. Regardless, please keep your comments on focus toward improving the article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Privatization of Hurricane Management 

message: Is that true. It in this artilce and what is the source. Thats a huge development.
:Last I heard, it was just over 150 in Harrison County. Considering the population of Biloxi is 50,000 that number seems really high... CrazyC83 19:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be 1,000 missing. Some of the missing might likely evacuated and no one reported it to the media or authorities... CrazyC83 20:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A lot of NOLA folks couldn't evacuate beyond Biloxi, so it's hard to say. 128.200.54.31 20:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not true that it is confirmed. It may be true, but it isn't confirmed. -- Cyrius|✎ 09:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1000 confired dead in biloxi 

message: PLEASE do not move text and pictures around in the Storm Development section. It throws everything off kilter.
Is it copyright protected to use a graphic from a media source?  Using a headshot or screenshot might fly, but media outlets are pretty particular about their own graphics.  Also, the placement on the page is terrible, a picture insert needs space around it.  Also, someone did a very sloppy job with the white space to the left of the box, several lines are blank.  As well, the removal of existing picture content without discussion was not appreciated.Kyle Andrew Brown
*The graphic itself would be copyrighted, so we would have to assert fair use, and go down the list of factors - purpose is educational (a point for us); type of work is creative (point for them because we could come up with our own graphic); portion used depends on what context the graphic was taken from, but is probably a point for them; effect on the market probably is a point for them as well. I'd say we shouldn't use graphics from other media sources. -- BD2412 talk 21:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I managed to get rid of the blank area in Storm development, but now it returns.  Can't find the code error.Kyle Andrew Brown 21:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MSNBC box/Storm development blank area 

message: I've started the article on Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, but it's very raw at the moment. -- BD2412 talk 21:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's clear folks with no understanding of the work it takes editors to prepare and post content are lurking here.  They do not know that it takes consensus to remove and delete material.  It's unfortunate.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, some of us busted our asses to get those sites up. Yes, mine was listed. No, I'm not taking it personally... but there is a community of folks who are trying to help that are being stepped on by overzealous editors. Is it encyclopedic? Maybe not. Perhaps we can loosen the standards when lives are at stake, eh folks? --El-Spectre 09:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social effects of Hurricane Katrina]] 

message: User Kbk keeps deleting this quote from President Bush:
:I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. They did appreciate a serious storm but these levees got breached and as a result much of New Orleans is flooded and now we're having to deal with it and will. — President George W. Bush ().
The comments KbK has left upon deletion has been: 
:rm quote. It's not a prediction, and isn't even correct, since overtopping the levees was a major concern to officials in the area.)
:I hope people don't play politics during this period of time," [Bush] said.
The quote is accurate as sourced and demonstrates President Bush's understanding and preparedness for Hurricane Katrina. Just because the President's remarks conflict with officials concerns, doesn't change its correctness.
:::hmm, well, the quote is accurate, it is, however, awkward just sitting in the middle of text.  Without placement context it is vulnerable to many issues, both editorially and politically.  The record appears to show that the Bush Administration removed the former Congressman who headed the Army Corps of Engineers who fought for funding to upgrade the levees, the record does show the Administration cut the budget this year for spending on the levees.  So on that basis, for a government official to say "noone expected the levees to breech" is kinda lame.  
:::I do not believe KbK is being at all malicious here, however, the placement and context needs to be work shopped in MHO.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Anon? What are you talking about?Kyle Andrew Brown 23:36, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  President Bush's Reaction 

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

text: But only if you mention that 'respectable' sources have also made the opposite contention.  What's the point? --timc | Talk 03:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I challenge you to name a single respectiable source that said anything specifically about Katrina. Time published an article which mentioned katrina in the headline and in the footer (the footer was just saying in the future we could see storms worse than katrina) the rest was some generic talk about warming causing more powerful storms. Thus the material does not belong in Katrina 24.165.233.150 03:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming

message: Perhaps the imagery in the article could be complimented (replaced?) with imagery such as these:
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Current/TRCkatrina240_N5.jpg
http://www.osei.noaa.gov/Events/Current/TRCkatrina241_N5.jpg
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/image/0508/katrina_goes12_big.jpg
All of the above images are in the public domain, with the caveat that we give credit.
Earthsound 22:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The image look like the require a great deal of size to show what they want to show, and there is a problem putting them directly on the article page. Also, for the most part readers know where the storm struck.  For sure they can go as external links.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:14, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional imagery of Katrina 

message: So, I noticed someone keeps readding and moving to near the top the external link to . The site claims to be a charatable nonprof operated by a student group at   Tulane called CACTUS. But the student group page doesn't make any mention of the person's name who is on the DNS contact information. The phone number attached goes unanswered. And nothing on the CACTUS page seems to imply that they are normally in the bussiness of collecting money or that they even have charatable nonprof tax status. ... I hate to be suspicious, but there is really nothing to back up the claims made by the site... and after the huge amount of fraud that happened with tsunami donations, I think it is reasonable to cast a critical eye on these things. Can someone else tell me what they think? 24.165.233.150 23:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed them, please help to do the same when these links reappear again. FEMA already provides a list of charities. It's not our role to verify or endorse these charities. --Vsion 23:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent catch  24.165.233.150.  It appears consensus and WIKI requirements would ask the following be politely sent to their talk page: That the link is not to be placed in this article.  Then if they redo it is my understanding they violate 3RR.  So send the polite notice when you get a chance.  The notice also appears right here.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CACTUS (Community Action Council Of Tulane University Students) is a long-standing organization on Tulane's campus. It sounds as if their "New Orleans Hurricane Fund" is an upstart fund intended to "bring together the Tulane student body" in rebuilding the city. According to the linked website, they are planning to fill niche needs left unmet by larger releif organizations, specifically at schools and hospitals. Although CACTUS has a track record, this fund does not. I think it's best that promotion of this relief fund NOT feature prominently in this general interest encyclopedia, but we can wish them the best with their efforts among the Tulane community. Dystopos 17:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fradulant charities? 

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

message: I cant figure out who did it, but great job and very appreciated.  Thanks for noticing to shorten line length.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tom688 great placement of Econ cover across for pic in New Orleans section.  Let's guard it.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Article Link Chart 

message: At some point the Link 1 from yesterday got changed to a White House briefing page.  The article can rightly include the link.  However, I suggest that it be placed perhaps elsewhere in context in the article/placed as an external link.  
The summary should not be used to place external links for several reasons including:
* the Summary itself is the summary, and a link adds to the summary. The summy introduces all to follow.  The Summy should speak for itself.
* experience shows that whenever a link is put in a summary about current events especially that political passions rise.  It's fine to have passion, but they should not appear in a summary.
* Friday Sep 2 we already see verrrry heated political passions rising on this story that at first began as a report on the natural storm.  The story is now shifting considerably.
* the use of a White House web page in the Summary would not be considered neutral by some.
* it would be true on the day a safety announcement is made, for example, that this type of link would have prominance.  The time for issuing this safety announcement is long past.
Kyle Andrew Brown 00:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary Paragraph Link 

message: Earlier it was discussed whether this article should be about the storm.  
We should discuss this again, because in the days to come the political issues regarding the aftermath of the storm are going to be heated.  
:Is there a point where the "Hurricane Katrina" article needs to be left at the arrival of the storm, it's pyhsical description, it's immediate affect/impact.  At just about the point we are now - - with ongoing updates/corrections of data.  And then another article on the politics of Hurricane Katrina which are going to build and build in content and will devour the content already existing here in this article.
:Today, also, we already see the difficulty of lurkers rummaging around the content and layout.  I suggest the general record on this article is settling in and the rummaging of existing content mixed with new content is going to drive editing and preservation to the brink.
:Political effects of Hurricane Katrina is set up for the politics.
Please join in this conversation.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conference 

message: In March, 1982 in Fort Wayne, Indiana there was an abrupt warm front with much rain that moved over NE Indiana causing snow melt and flooding. Located at the confluence of the St. Mary's, St. Joseph and Maumee Rivers the waters crested and prompted sandbagging of the banks. Then-president Ronald Reagan was flown to the stricken area, took of his coat and helped with a few sandbags himself. Since then, a modern flood wall was built there.
Musicwriter 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also the 1913 Great Dayton Flood which resulted in an amazing system of reservoirs to prevent future flooding; however, neither is worthy of discussion here.  (Apologies for the sarcasm) Peyna 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other floods 

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

message: CrazyC83 has added an  tag to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, apparently based on his belief that keeping the article POV-free "is virtually impossible. What some view as NPOV is POV for others, on both sides of the fence." I'd like for a neutral third party to have a look at the page and offer an opinion as to whether the tag is justified. -- BD2412 talk 02:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As a general rule, it is inappropriate to place an NPOV tag without bringing specific correctable problems with the article to the Talk page. CrazyC83 ought to know that. If he can't defend the placement of the tag, it should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality check requested for [[Political effects of Hurricane Katrina]] 

message: Can someone tell me why the controversy in which an anti-abortion group blamed Katrina on the existence of abortion clinics in New Orleans not belong in the article? --Asbl 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reason that Osama Bin Laden saying that Katrina was punishment from Allah is not allowed either. It's religious extremism, and we're trying to keep a neutral point of view. In any case, that kind of thing would belong at the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, not here. --Titoxd 02:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Titoxd, that sounds like something of a misunderstanding of NPOV... If we can quote someone notable saying that the storm was punishment for whatever, then repeating that fact (that they said it) would not be a violation of NPOV and might well be of interest in the article. 24.165.233.150 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree. I was trying to come up with a less extreme example, but I couldn't come up with one. If Bin Laden ended up proclaiming that, then a whole lot of eyebrows would be raised and it would deserve a mention in the article. But my point is: the anti-abortion group isn't notable, so why should they be in the article? --Titoxd 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With that, you have my agreement. 24.165.233.150 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: It may be a good idea to update the looting section to differentiate the initial opportunistic looting (Stereos, shoes etc) from the later looting. The looting which is happening right now is arising from desperation due to a shortage of water and food, and  I think that some distinction should be made between the two.
:There is too much coverage of foreigners (tourists) doing all the looting. Some tourists from other countries were unable to leave New Orleans, and they had to take some food in order to survive. There are others kidnapping people, holding them up, commiting murders, and even shooting at the police. I would describe these as bandits, criminal gangsters or pirates rather than looters.  Leistung 12:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looting 

message: http://digg.com/technology/How_The_Woman_Who_Owned_Katrina.com_Started_Helping_Victims (http://techdirt.com/articles/20050902/0141234_F.shtml)
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-09-02-katrina.com_x.htm?csp=34
It seems that this Katrina.com bit is a very relevant bit of info. Shall we add to story? Lockeownzj00 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm.  My first reaction is this is not a blog.  I would expect a good blog to link to all sorts of side bar storys.  I sorta think katrina.com is either human interest maybe promotion, but I'm not sure.  I sorta think the encyclopedia article here records the natural affects of the storm and the starting point of where the politics evolve.  Then in Political effects of Hurricane Katrina goes the truly political stuff.  Where to put the human interest stuff like this appears to be, well first its newspaper site stuff really.  At what point is it encyclopedic?  That's the question you have to engage.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina.com? 

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

message: Apparently they're going to be deploying Magnetic Acoustic Devices(MADs) for crowd control. Do we already have an article for this device? See http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68732,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 for details
:See Long range acoustic device. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAD 

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

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

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

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

message: This sentence from the 09/03/05 Washington Post: "Before the storm, the Mobile, Ala., Biloxi, Miss., and New Orleans metropolitan areas supported about 1 million non-farm jobs, with about 600,000 of them in New Orleans." 
I noted it in the Economic effects article, is the information placeable in the main article here?
Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202468.htmlKyle Andrew Brown 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics and Employment 

message: Does anyone else think it is strange that Democracy Now and Commondreams are cited as sources for "facts" about this event.  I almost guarantee that if anyone put a statement in this article sourced from Newsmax or World News Daily, that it would by yanked for POV. Homoneutralis 20:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an accuracy problem with the content, bring it here.. If there is something wrong with a particular source, find an alternative source. --24.165.233.150 20:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

text: We've got some articles with sources from White supremacist sites cited as articles. I kind of have doubts over your guarantee.--220.238.233.226 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are Liberal advocacy sites sources for this event? 

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

message: Well, it was probably inevitable... I've created an article on Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories, in order to house... ah... theories that have been put in some other articles without really belonging there (or anywhere else). -- BD2412 talk 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you having a standard to keep out the ridiculous, or is the article bound to evolve into the ridiculous and is that a permissible WIKI article.  Oh and do we get photos of the aliens...remember they must be free domain and of excellent resolution. No grainy photos will be accepted....Kyle Andrew Brown 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Rest assured, Wikipedia has plenty of articles about the ridiculous. -- BD2412 talk 02:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy theories 

message: I had to see this too believe it, but Something Awful is down. They only have a frontpage up right now, but the main servers were located in New Orleans, I believe in the DirectNIC building. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned under the Internet section (it is on the main article page), as SA is popular and rather infamous, but seems a bit trivial in light of what's going on.--YoungFreud 01:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: you might be interested in this link about PayPal blocking them from donations...
[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25915}Kyle Andrew Brown 15:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

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

message: I have not seen this mentioned anywhere (in the media or on wikipedia) but I see very close parallels between Katrina and the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane.
* Both were strong category 4 storms at US landfall (weakened from category 5).
* Both caused total devastation along the coast (well, what category 4 hurricane doesn't...).
* Both caused (wide, shallow) lakes to overflow their levees and flood inhabited lower-elevation land.
* Both floods persisted for weeks (presumably), leading to a humanitarian disaster.
* In both floods, the victims were mostly poor and mostly minorities.
* Both killed thousands (presumably).
While one can make comparisons between any set of destructive hurricanes I think the 1928 hurricane is the most closely comparable to Katrina - more so than Camille (which caused the devastation expected of any strong storm and happened to hit in the same place) or Betsy (which did cause flooding, and in the same location, but without the other disasters).
Should any mention of this be added to the Katrina article?  Or is this just my own personal extrapolation?
Jdorje 02:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane did most of its killing in rural areas, incredibly! CrazyC83 16:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to 1928 hurricane 

message: I just came upon the Hurrican Katrina page, and it had been seriously vandalized.  Someone under the IP address 202.7.183.130 had replaced the entire article with images of the human male penis in both the flacid and errect states.  I'm glad I wasn't in an public place or somewhere else where it may have caused some awkward moments.  If that's going to be happening, perhaps it's time to protect the article from editing until things cool down.
JesseG 02:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
*I thought the big penis images were on MediaWiki:Bad image list? ~~ N (t/c) 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, redirected. -- Mardus 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Moved my messages here from the wrong section. Mardus 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: This isn't strictly about the encyclopedia, but: I had an idea that it could be good to have a disaster wiki. Possibly it could be through either Wikimedia or Wikicities. 
One of the thing it could do is help volunteers, victims, etc., communicate. For instance, it could include an alphabetical listing of people affected and their status, a list of shelters and people willing to take in refugees. Maurreen (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Already exists for this particular disaster: . This could be a worthy Wikimedia project, though... if we have sep11wiki, we might as well have this. ~~ N (t/c) 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Moved my messages under the "Vandalism" section.^^ Mardus 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Another one is katrinahelp.info. Note that both these sites explicitly include things that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also found this: *Think New Orleans Maurreen (talk) 05:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disaster wiki?

message: There seems to be some disagreement over what Katrina's storm surge really was.  I have seen the 30 feet statistic included in the article quoted at least by Yahoo News, but the St. Petersburg Times () says it was 29 feet, and the Monday 6 AM NHC forecast called for a maximum surge of 28 feet (]).  The 28 feet forecast seems to have been repeated as fact by several sources, including  and .  On the other hand, at least one source () gives the surge as "over 30 feet in spots", but does not provide further details.  All these values are clearly peak values, and many news sources give Katrina's storm surge as 22 feet, the average (?) level given in the NHC forecast cited above.  Given all this, I would either like to see an authoritative citation of the 30 feet statistic or some fuzz factor included in the article. Ataru 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between the surge and the maximum sea height. The surge is the height ON TOP of the tide, and since Katrina hit near high tide, 25 ft above sea level would have seen water from a 22 ft surge. Plus, you often have wave action on top of that height. 28 or 29 ft appears to the correct value, but water levels are seen higher than that. One home in Waveland reported water at nearly 40 feet, but that is possible with tide+surge+wave and would be consistent with the reports of seeing water damage over 30 feet in Biloxi. I've seen one surge map (NOAA or Navy) that I believe showed 29 feet, but I can't find it now. I'll try and find it and post it. 70.181.93.233 09:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There are also places like the shore of Lake Pontchartrain, which is itself above sea level, and which concentrated the storm surge brought directly inside by counter-clockwise winds. I'm not sure we have an authoritative height for that. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storm surge uncertainty