Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 6

message: A writer to info-en@wikimedia.org has suggested that three additional NGOs be mentioned by name:
* Convoy of Hope
* The Samaritan's Purse
* Operation Blessing
Dont forget
*Handsonusa (before they linked with Handsonnetwork) There are many articles on the web about them and what they accomplished in Mississippi.
I myself am far from expert enough on this topic to evaluate this suggestion, so I have instead passed it along to those of you who follow this page so that you may act upon it, if warranted.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other NGOs 

message: Moving sections around to fit into either the impact or aftermath sections reveals something that was long suspect: there is basically no information in the article on the impact of the storm.  All the article's coverage details the responses at various levels, the looting, or various other aspects of the aftermath.  The reason for this is obvious and easily confirmed by looking at the references: all the media coverage was of the aftermath.  The problem is exacerbated because the TCR, where most of the veteran TC editors get their information, only gives a brief overview of the damage ("the damage caused by Katrina is well beyond the scope of this article to fully describe").  But there is no way to find out what was actually damaged, or where.
So, to go forward with improving this article, the first thing to do is to expand the impact section.  DO NOT add aftermath information here.  We need an explanation, probably one paragraph per county/parish, of the scale of the devastation.  We need a lot more attention given to the mississippi coastline (which for some reason never gets any attention, despite suffering the worst damage).  We probably need to get rid of the "Space Shuttle" and "Internet" sections (moved into the effects by region article); these should just have a sentence or two in the appropriate place.
Next (or concurrently), we need to continue condensing the aftermath section.  Currently there is one page on looting and 3-4 pages on the responses at various levels.  We do not, for instance, need to know that "Volunteers from amateur radio's emergency service wing, the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, provided emergency communications for federal, state and local officials. Over one thousand volunteer operators traveled to affected areas to provide communications in areas where the communications infrastructure had been damaged or totally destroyed, relaying everything from 911 traffic to messages home."  Such information is not particularly useful since the impact section doesn't even describe where exactly the "affected areas" are.
Finally (or concurrently), we need to expand the "Criticism of Government Response" section.  This somehow got cut from the article entirely (previous information was so POV that that may have been the best choice), but we do need a *brief* *summary* of the criticism.  Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Andrew may perhaps provide examples here, since the exact same criticism followed in the aftermath of those storms.  Note that the one paragraph that's in that section now probably doesn't deserve to stay in the main article at all.
Once this is all done I think we will have a decently-structured decently-balanced article.  The remaining problem will be figuring out what to do with the Media section.
As a side note, it is interesting that the problems this article has are exactly the same as what the Hurricane Camille article has.  That article is fairly lengthy but has just 5 sentences covering the impact.
— jdorje (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More todo 

message: Various sources, including a journal article (also now published in full on line) by a couple former Nat'l Hurr. Ctr. officials, list the largest hurricane fatalities in US history, after Galveston, this way:
2) Okeechobee, South Florida, 1928, 2500-3000
3) Independence hurricane, Florida to Newfoundland, 1775, 4000 US-Canada 
4) Eastern Gulf of Mexico coast, 1780, 2000, 
5) Sea Islands, South Carolina-Georgia, 1893, 1000-2500, 
6) Louisiana, 1893, 1100-2000.
Katrina's eventual likely toll of around 2700 will put it into 3rd, not 2nd, based on the rather well documented (not "official" undercounts) of 3300-3900 for the 1928 storm.  Furthermore, the admittedly approximate numbers for the two 1700's storms were done with a fairly rigorous methodology and should not be ignored as at present? DLinth 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your numbers are a bit off.  List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes has a complete list, based on official sources, namely the NHC.  Going by journal entries is a bad idea since they get their info second-hand.  The confusion mostly stems from deaths caused inside versus outside the US. — jdorje (talk) 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The official source is the NHC.  You can easily see their list of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes.  It's possible they don't count the 1775 or 1780 storms (assuming you're right and those deaths occurred in the modern U.S.) because that was before the current U.S. existed (though in the case of 1780 this is sketchy).  Also note there were, astoundingly, *3* extremely deadly hurricanes in October of 1780, so the potential for confusion is high; however based on 5 minutes research it looked to me like the "eastern gulf of mexico" storm probably struck both cuba and florida. — jdorje (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Impact - Death toll from other US hurricanes

message: Maybe people should update this article now. The death toll has changed.Astroview120mm 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been kept updated. The death toll is as up-to-date as we know. —Cuiviénen,  Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 00:21 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit by an anon because I felt like their edit was more appropriate for a discussion page.  I didn't want to completely delete it as not to discourage newbies. --Anaraug 09:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 

message: I'd like to see a timeline in the article, perhaps in table form, for easy reference of when Katrina hit where, and when the levees in New Orleans breached, and so on.  --zandperl 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The timeline is here. It's pretty detailed. I don't think it should be part of the article itself. It is appropriate being linked to it. The article is already long enough as it is. Dr. Cash 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline? 

message: I recently returned to look at this article after being away from this space for some time.  I am working on current response efforts at a different site FEMAanswers.org.  The www.FEMAanswers.org site was getting about 100 hits per month coming from this article, but now gets none, and I see that reference to current recovery efforts was removed.  I think that section should be restored.  Any reaction from those editors who did good work to improve this article?  By posing this question, I also hope to entice one English wikipedia editor to help at FEMAanswers.org.  So far, I just have help from a German speaker, who has been great.  Thanks!  Castellanet 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current Recovery Efforts 

message: I have under taken a project to completely copyedit this article. Yes, I know that all of you have been gradually doing so over time, but I'm specifically focusing on copyediting, etc. However, this is such a massive article that I can't do it by myself. If any of you could look out for a few sections, I'd be appreciative.Omni ND 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing to do is to extend the impact section.  For all the insane length of this article, it hardly tells anything about the impact; particularly the Mississippi coast which was hardest hit is barely even mentioned. — jdorje (talk) 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please Help 

message: The following is a link to a report, first hand, on the status of New Orleans just after the hurricane. I have looked at what I can find for articles about the situation in Wiki, but none of them seem to be the place to put this link - no real location for 'what it was like' in the city in the days just following the storm. Perhaps some of you, with time to look at this, and more familiarity with the Katrina articles, could suggest a place. http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/556/556_04_RealHeroes.shtml --Dumarest 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The personal side of the aftermath

message: The international response section takes up more space than it is needed.  (1/3 of the template.)  I am proposing that it be removed as the articles are mostly stubs and are ALL linked from the main international response page. --Kunzite 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent idea.  However this template page is not the place to discuss it.  Discuss it on Talk:Hurricane Katrina. — jdorje (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie. --Kunzite 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds reasonable. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condense international aid to one link... 

message: No offense to the guy who uploaded it, but this pic is terrible. It's huge and takes up way too much of the page and you can barely make the Katrina track out through the crowd of other tracks in there. I really don't see what value it adds. Based on this, I think it should be removed. -- §HurricaneERIC§Damagesarchive 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think our track map image is better, and since it is based on best-track data, they're redundant. Also, I've removed the paragraph that talked about Rita's and Wilma's tracks; that has already been covered in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good point. The hurricane track map really didn't add anything to the Hurricane Katrina article. It might go in a general article about historic hurricanes, but even that is questionable. The image was really a bit too crowded. Dr. Cash 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a nice illustration of the activity of the 2005 season, but that's still not for this article. --AySz88^-^ 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was a cropping of :Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season map.png, which we already have... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah yes, good point. :P --AySz88^-^ 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Track pic 

message: I've been changing IR pictures into visible ones. I think this Katrina picture is one of the best I've seen, so I decided to put it on the infobox. If there is some problem with the picture, you can revert the act. Also, about the caption, I'm not sure if it is written gramatically perfect, so, if there is a mistake feel free to correct it, since my native language is not English. juan andrés 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What about the picture in the infobox?

message: The AfD Discussion closed with a no consensus result but there was a sizable support for merging.  The Article would ideally be slimmed down and merged into the Aftermath section of this article. --Strothra 21:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't merge it here, it's too minor to be merged. Instead, add details about the devastation to the entire Mississippi area to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi and then merge some of those details here. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that if that were to be done it should be Impacts of Hurricane Katrina so that it does not leave out the other areas impacted by the storm. --Strothra 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem would be that it would become a huge article, and we had already subdivided this article several times, per geographical area, and the articles are listed on . Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the article itself, you have it backwards (the real name, according to a footnote in it, is Hardy not Harvey). --AySz88^-^ 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with this sentiment.  The information there should not be "merged" because the vast majority of it is not noteworthy enough to be included in any of the katrina's sub-articles.  At most there should be a sentence or two mention in some sub-article about the media's involvement in the storm (or possibly a media subsection in the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi article, as mentioned below). — jdorje (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hardy Jackson]] 

message: HPC (NWS) information on Katrina - It seems that a lot of that information came straight off this article! We have a lot more clout if OFFICIAL government agencies are using Wikipedia as a source to get the official numbers! (We had to use dozens of news sources to get to the correct numbers) CrazyC83 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that is what is going on with that article. To me it looks like they used the TCR as their primary source, the same as us, hence the similarities.--Nilfanion 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Look at this.. 

message: Why are there four paragraphs devoted to preparations in New Orleans, while the only thing I see about Mississippi is "Mandatory evacuations were issued for large areas of southeast Louisiana as well as coastal Mississippi and Alabama."
That discrepancy's no good.  Any good emergency manager in coastal Mississippi would have known that what happened in Camille wwas about to happen again, and I'm sure we could find some reports to expand upon that.  238 people were killed in Mississippi.  Camille killed 143 there with 1960s warning skill.  What happened?--SomethingFunny 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mississippi Preparations section lacking 

message: The US government's bipartisan report (cited above by Tito) said:
*Despite adequate warning 56 hours before landfall, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin delayed ordering a mandatory evacuation in New Orleans until 19 hours before landfall.
*The failure to order timely mandatory evacuations, Mayor Nagin’s decision to shelter but not evacuate the remaining population, and decisions of individuals led to an incomplete evacuation.
*The incomplete pre-landfall evacuation led to deaths, thousands of dangerous rescues, and horrible conditions for those who remained. (page 17)
I haven't come to the part which said hundreds of thousands "could not" get out. I'm a slow reader; bear with me. --Uncle Ed 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What it is saying is at the time of the report the population is approx 100,000. At the time Katrina struck the population was 470,000....(assuming the figure you quoted is accurate)--Nilfanion (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, my bad! I had a feeling when glancing rapidly through the lengthy report that 100,000 was kind of low. I should have realized that was a post-Katrina figure. I'm glad you caught that before I did anything as stupid as putting it in the article. :-) --Uncle Ed 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: People who did not leave New Orleans

message: :Linda Aldoory, director of the Center for Risk Communication Research at the University of Maryland. “With Katrina, people knew the importance of storm warnings and the need to evacuate, but didn’t have the physical access to do so.”23
Based on quotes in previous sections and the one immediately above, I think that blame can be shared roughly equally among all 4 levels: federal, state, city and individual:
*individuals did not heed warnings, but the delay of the "mandatory evacuation" order probably misled them into thinking they could ride out the storm. For 1,100 people this strategy did not work. They died.
*the city's mayor delayed the "mandatory evacuation" order until 19 hours before the hurricane hit. That's not enough time for people to decide to relocate. 
*I don't know what the governor did - I got to read more
*The president might have looked into what mistakes the governor and mayor were about to make, and take steps to override their judgment - to the extent permitted by law and custom. 
If I were president, I would have ordered the armed forces to be ready for a last-minute forced evacuation. Swoop in with helicopters or trucks or boats, if the governor and mayor kept delaying the evacuation. Give them a deadline: if you don't decide by X o'clock on such-and-such day, then I'll declare martial law (or something like that). 
But Bush would have gotten just as much criticism from the Democratic Party for over-riding local authority as for "going limp" and just responding to requests. I wonder if there was a slightly more proactive thing he could have done, in the face of such delay and disorganization on the part of local authorities. Is there a law that lets the president bypass a state governor if "enough" lives are at stake? If so, I haven't found it through googling. --Uncle Ed 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not appropriate at all for us to come to those conclusions. We do have a Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina article, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 23:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Leaving New Orleans

message: In the section "Looting and Violence," the last paragraph reads "In Texas, where more than 300,000 refugees are located, local officials have run 20,000 criminal background checks on the refugees, as well as on the relief workers helping them and people who have opened up their homes. Most of the checks have found little for police to be concerned about. Though, ironically, the murder rate in Houston went up by 75% in the weeks after Katrina. [32]" The citation given refers to an Associated Press article covering evacuee background checks in West Virgina (http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=5266), and mentions nothing about crime rates going up anywhere. I think it would be better if the citation referenced the Texas checks specifically mentioned. I'm going to move the location of the current citation to preceed the statement about the Houston murder rate, since it does not touch on that in any way, and place a citation needed tag there. Comments? Foofiticus 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Increased Crime in Cities That Housed Evacuees 

message: How is it that the lead of the article has not a word about the social significance of the storm? What was important about Katrina was not just its size and the dollar-value destruction it caused; it was the aftermath, what it revealed about American society (or, at the very least, what people believed it revealed about American society). And nothing — nothing! — about that in the lead? zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This whole article is in a bad shape at this time. The lead has problems as you have pointed out, the Impact is nearly non-existent, the Aftermath is too detailed...--Nilfanion (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: "What it revealed about American society"?  - That'd be POV, depending on who's writing it. Dubc0724 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: I've gone through the article adding lots of  notices. I might have gone a bit overboard with it, but better that way than having unsourced statements. I could go through and find sources for some of it (a lot of it I know is true, others will be referenced in the appropriate sub-article), but I don't have the patience given the sheer amount involved.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All of them are referenced now... Titoxd(?!? - help us) 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, for now... (That wasn't as bad as I thought, maybe I missed some though.)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Citations should be added properly. Merely adding the URL of the article you're referring to is completely useless because many times, URLs eventually are de-linked (or changed). A proper citation should include the author name, article title, publication title, and publication date. You can either enter this information directly in between the 'ref' tags, or use the cite web template, though I am not a big fan of this template -- it's a bit awkward and cumbersome to use, not to mention it's kinda silly to put a 'URL accessed on' date (either the URL goes somewhere or it doesn't; who gives a rat's behind when someone last visited). But at least provide us with the useful information. Dr. Cash 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, the last time I heard of it, the access date is required because it can be used in conjunction with the Wayback Machine to check previous revisions of pages. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, the 'cite web' template is not bad as it is. My major beef with it right now is the wording they use for 'URL accessed on XXX'. I think this looks a bit sloppy and unprofessional, and it actually does not conform to existing standards for citing internet/website sources, such as the APA Style for Electronic References. I think "Retrieved on XXX" looks much better here. Dr. Cash 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations please 

message: Throughout this wretched piece, you have left remarks of the fact that Katrina caused $75 billion.
As of current information, Katrina has given way to almost $225 billion dollars.
Throughout this wretched piece, you have left remarks of the fact that Katrina killed 1,386 people.
As of current information, Katrina has given way to almost 13,860 deaths.
Please revise.
67.86.24.40 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any references to back up what you're saying? Titoxd(?!?) 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur. References are definitely needed to back up your figures. This is the first I've seen figures that high in either the death count or dollar/damage estimate. And please don't supply personal blog postings as references.  We want actual, valid media references. Dr. Cash 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the 19 June 2006 issue of the Baton Rouge Advocate (Sect. C, p. 1) lists the total number of "Katrina victim" bodies recovered as 1,577 as of June 6th. That's 17 reported by the Orleans Parish coroner, 193 by other parish coroners, 887 by DMORTs, and 480 reported from other states. Also, the "Find Family National Call Center" (now renamed "Family Assistance Center"), took 11,714 calls and found 11,519 of the people being searched for, with "only" 195 still missing. (The great majority of those, probably, being not dead by simply out-of-touch -- perhaps deliberately for some of them. . . .) --Michael K. Smith 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Damages & Costs, Deaths 

message: I really don't think the most intense hurricane table adds anything to the article, the pertinent info is already incorporated into the prose of the storm history. If we are going to have a meteorological table is in the article it should be the most intense US landfalling table IMO, that tells us something different.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tables 

message: I've noticed the use of the word "refugee" in the article to refer to those displaced by Hurricane Katrina.  It should be noted that by definition, refugees are those who have fled across their nation-state boundaries in order to seek refuge in a neighbouring nation-state.  Since that didn't happen in this case, in the article the word "refugee" should be replaced with the term "displaced persons".  They cannot be refugees within their own country, and to refer to them as refugees diminishes their equality in American citizenship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TanGyal (talk • contribs) .
:Yes, they are Internally displaced persons.  Not refugees.  At least in international law. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Evacuees" is more correct, and I've replaced it to that. Titoxd(?!?) 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was also considerable resentment (here in Baton Rouge, anyway) by evacuees who were labeled "refugees" in the first days after the hurricane. Those interviewed on the subject said it made them feel "not American". . . . --Michael K. Smith 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word "refugee" 

message: Apparently there is a problem in Wikiville. Wikipedia rules clearly state that so long as there are outstanding actionable objections against an article it should not be granted featured status. Giving this article featured status violates this rule. Both myself and poster Avenue clearly articulated problem areas that needed to be dealt with yet both our objections were almost completely ignored. The objections still stand. No one has made any attempt to address them. Wikipedia's reputation is on the line here. --Jayzel 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is really not the right place for to discuss this. TimL 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Where else should I go? --Jayzel 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. TimL 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the belief was that the consensus was against merging information already existing in subarticles into this article. Remember, this article was once over 200kb long, making it the longest article on Wikipedia except for lists. The article is comprehensive without going too far in depth. Such depth is left to subarticles. —Cuiviénen 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The article is NOT comprehensive as it fails to mention anything about the preparations and response of the state and local governments to the hurricane. The article leaves the impression that the federal U.S. government controls all functions of hurricane response, and that is not correct. FEMA deals only with emergency response and acts as a support system for local governments. As it stands now, the article is biased against the Bush administration. Until these objections are are responded to and rectified I am put a NPOV tag on the article.  --Jayzel 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe there was a consensus in the FAC discussion, but that's probably better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. For this page, the relevant issue is that at least three editors (zafiroblue05, Jayzel and me) feel that the article currently does not deal adequately with the controversies over preparation and response. Although space is an issue, I believe there are other things that should be cut back first. The fact that these issues are covered in a subarticle doesn't excuse us from achieving good coverage here, even if it has to be highly summarised. -- Avenue 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The issue was that there was no agreement to change it either - some editors said that they felt comfortable with the coverage already in the article, and others didn't. I'm reluctant to make changes of that magnitude (which are really just bringing details to the main article and massively summarizing them) until there is consensus on what exactly to bring. So, how about we agree on what to bring instead of tagging articles? Titoxd(?!?) 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You have removed documented irrefutable information, you have removed the NPOV tag, and this article was falsely given featured status with outstanding and unacknowleged objections. WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME A JOKE. You can have your little star, but this website will be exposed for the fraud it is. --Jayzel 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm getting sick of this. Rather than you complaining, why don't you just add in what you want? It's in the subpages already. Most of us are fine with that, but if you aren't, why don't you just add it in and stop complaining. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A problem in Wikiville 

message: What effects were being felt by Katrina on the periphery before final landfall (i.e. Cuba, Bahamas)? Apart from the TCR, I can't find anything although the storm's outer bands was clearly affecting those areas. CrazyC83 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the periphery? 

message: As a whole this article is impeccable. As a person who lived 3 streets from the 17th street canal and lost everything I would like to give my sincere appreciation for the excellent work done here. I have only found one problem and that is the "supposed" warning given to Bush about the possibility of a breach in the levee system. This was the famous "leaked" video. Since then it has been debunked based on the fact that what was actually said was that the levee could be overtopped.  That is completely different especially to people who live here. I see no point of this staying in the way it is currently written since the only purpose it seems to serve is as a possible "gottcha" moment against Bush. The problem is it wasn't a "gottcha" moment because it didn't happen the way this article portrays it.--firewife 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. While Bush was criticized for the inconsistency (not just by the Telegraph, but by the AP ), we should make it clear that the criticism was later debunked. (This BBC article has details of the AP's later clarification.) Once this is done, it would probably be best to shift this passage to the sub-article on Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina. I think there are better uses for the space here, but someone will probably add the mistaken version again if we just delete it. -- Avenue 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, glad you like it. If no one objects, I'll move that passage to the sub-article in a day or so. -- Avenue 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved this paragraph to the sub-article as discussed above. -- Avenue 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video of Bush being warned of breach in levee 

message: The NWS Service Assessment released in June 2006 give a new figure of total damage from Katrina.  The Executive Summary on page 1 on the report list estimated damages of $81.2 billion, which is $6 billion dollars higher that the $75 billion dollar estimate that the NHC previously gave...maybe we should "up" the damages to this figure on the article page.  Here is a link to the report http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf  Tfelts  2045hrs 13 July 2006 (UTC)
:Good find. Everything should be adjusted accordingly. --Hurricanehink (talk) 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I think that's unofficial. Because it's not a US government website or a NOAA website, we can't use it. Hurricanehink (talk) 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Damage Estimate