Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 7

message: is this included in the article? --Striver 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Media 

message: Removed sentence from 163.153.111.64 in "Storm history" RQSTR 14:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism 

message: There were several updates in the TCR. 
*More on its early history and why it was TD12 and not TD10.
*Several previously undocumented tornadoes were added; I need to seek specifics on them.
*The death toll is updated to 1,833 (ignoring inland deaths that the HPC has declared part of Katrina).
*The damage estimate is corrected to $81 billion (close to the latest estimate of $81.2B).
*Storm surge information shown to good detail.
*Surface measurements added for its intensity.
CrazyC83 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCR updated 

message: I'd just like to take the time to say what an excellent article this is.
It is made perfectly throughout the wikiauthors.--ThanosMadTitan23 02:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Comment 

message: I've moved this section from the article here, so we can discuss it:
===Reconstruction===
The cities of Gulfport, Biloxi, Pascagoula, and Bay St. Loius in South Mississippi have many plans for the reconstrucion after Katrina. Several of them include a redisingend port area for Gulfport, which has shopping centers, an aquarium and a hidden port area.
The section does not have references; however, it is something that eventually should be added to the article, as well as information about the reconstruction in Louisiana and the rest of Mississippi. Do we have anything more to expand it with? Titoxd(?!?) 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved from article 

message: The cities of Gulfport, Biloxi, Pascagoula, and Bay St. Loius in South Mississippi have many plans for the reconstrucion after Katrina. Several of them include a redisingend port area for Gulfport, which has shopping centers, an aquarium and a hidden port area.
The section does not have references; however, it is something that eventually should be added to the article, as well as information about the reconstruction in Louisiana and the rest of Mississippi. Do we have anything more to expand it with? Titoxd(?!?) 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reconstruction

message: The article seems racist. It fails to adequately cover the prominent efforts by the Mayor or New Orleans, the plight of the poor and the black, and the trauma of evacuees in the Louisina Superdome and elsewhere. These were high profile events that drew international attention to poverty and third-world conditions in America and the social neglect of the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.191 (talk • contribs) 15:34, August 23, 2006
:I disagree. --Golbez 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the anon's very serious accusations of racist bias. I responded on his/her talk page, and pointed him/her to Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. szyslak (t, c, e) 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also relevant is Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Race_and_class_issues. But I don't entirely disagree with the anon's comments. I think one problem is that some of the later sections seem overly disconnected from each other. Why does the Criticism of government response come four sections after the Government response section, for instance? (It instead follows a section titled "Analysis of New Orleans levee failures".) Also, at present the words "race", "racism", "black" and "poverty" each appear just once in the article, all sequestered in the Criticism of government response section. Racism and poverty have been widely seen as relevant to the topics of other sections, but you might not think so from our article. -- Avenue 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed.  By reading the main article, a reader would not realize there had been any racial bias in the aftermath, or the newsworthy story that the hurricane opened a long delayed public dialogue on race in the U.S.  The omission seems almost intentional. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias Huangdi 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The oversight seems accidental, just as coverage of Mississippi (Oprah Winfrey's home state), has been under-reported, despite the 40-foot waves that leveled so many homes & buildings, many of them owned by blacks.  We can all add more detail to various city articles to describe what really happened, beyond the floods in New Orleans. -Wikid77 00:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 25-Aug-2006:  Also, the talk of "breached levees" seems misleading.  In NOLA (New Orleans, LA), the term "levee" means a dam that holds back the river or Lake Ponchartrain, whereas, in reality, the levees held, but instead, the canal walls broke.  A levee did break near Grand Isle, Louisiana, but not in NOLA.  However, perhaps talking about the flood as "broken levees" will help the funding of repairs.  Overall, I consider the 22-Aug-2006 versions of the Hurricane Katrina article as misleading on several issues, but many Wiki articles get censored/slanted.  -Wikid77 18:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racial bias 

message: According to the National Weather Service, Katrina had winds of 145 mph when it made landfall. This would make it a category four storm, however, in the article Katrina is referred to as a category three storm after making landfall. Is there data pertaining to the storm that contradict each other? I know it isn't a terribly big deal, because the storm was still devastating either way. In any event I made a few corrections concerning it, and if you feel that this is erroneously done, you may revert back.Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Link? The NHC had it as a Category 3. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/significant_events/2005/08_29_Katrina/index.php --I was looking up some information about the damage done in Alabama, and here is where I saw that it was a category four storm. (paragraph three)Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was operational, judging by the link's name. In post-analysis, the NHC dropped it from Cat 4 to 3. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing it up for me! Nice userpage, by the way. Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! :) Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 27-Aug-2006: Probably Category 4, although NHC post-analysis rated Katrina-Louisiana as "125-mph" Category 3, so far.  Since the center went 45 miles east of New Orleans, Katrina was actually a Mississippi hurricane, after passing Louisiana coastlines.  Experts predict, that like Hurricane Cindy and Hurricane Andrew, Katrina will be judged higher (Category 4), years hence.  Remember Katrina went "ashore" in flooded areas, when forming a second eye-wall that gave different wind speeds.  Thank God, Katrina missed New Orleans by 45 miles, allowing more days to evacuate.  Areas east of a hurricane, like Mississippi, often get the worst damage, and it is amazing only 300 died in Mississippi, considering 55-foot waves heading ashore.  -Wikid77 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Uh, which experts? Katrina was undergoing an eyewall replacement cycle at the time of landfall, and surface measurements confirmed the Category 3 intensity reassignment. Also, the problem in New Orleans was not storm surge, but rather backflooding from Lake Pontchartrain, and the "miss" was what caused the backflood, as the winds were blowing towards the ocean, not from it. Either way, speculating whether the NHC will raise its intensity assessment isn't really the purpose of this talk page... Titoxd(?!?) 19:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category 3 or Category 4? 

message: This paragraph was recently added, it just needs sources. If anyone finds one, feel free to move it back to the NGO response section:
:During and after the Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita, the American Red Cross had opened 2,700 different shelters across 27 different states (and registered 3.4 million overnight stays), some of which were evacuation centers for those displaced by the disaster. A total of 225,000 Red Cross workers (95% of which were non-paid volunteers) were utilized to provide sheltering, caseork, communication and assessment services throughout these three hurricanes. The organization served 34 million meals and 30 million snacks to victims of the disasters and to rescue workers. Red Cross emergency financial assistance was provided to 1.4 million families, which encompassed a total of 4 million people. The Red Cross estimated that it would need USD $2.1 Billion to cover costs associated with the disaster. Hurricane Katrina was the first natural disaster in the United States that the American Red Cross utilized their "Safe and Well" family location website.
Titoxd(?!?) 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From article (needs sources) 

message: There's a problem with non-existent references in the article For example, reference 84 (note-65) does not point to a citation, and a ctrl+f/command+f does not find a "[84]" in the article. – Chacor 02:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Solved by ref name. – Chacor 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Something is really borked with Cite.php. I'm reporting it to site admins now. Titoxd(?!?) 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-existent references 

message: The included map, Figure KW07, shows the wind-speed map for Hurricane Katrina at UTC 1200 on August 29, 2005 about 1 hour after landfall near Buras.  Note the winds were slower inside many areas of the coastline, not only near Lake Ponchartrain. -Wikid77 20:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina Wind Map 07:00 

message: Technical documents often have "numbered figures" ("Figure B3") to allow reference in the text.  I think it would help to have numbered figures, even though it can be tedious, but doesn't need to be in every document, or include every image in an article to be labeled as a figure, as long as figures are not 1/2/3.  It has been scientific tradition. -Wikid77 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An effort is made to keep relevant images with the section it illustrates. Frequently with technical documents and textbooks, layout is an issue, and images are frequently separated from the corresponding text. This necessitates numbered figures. The advantage of Wikipedia is that there is no end-of-page constraint. Numbered figures for Wikipedia, however, introduce the problem of incrementing all subsequent figure references manually (both in caption and in the corresponding text). If space is a constraint due to multiple illustrations in a section, that is when one must consider pruning some of the illustrations. Finally, this is not a technical document, nor aspires to it. It should be enjoyable to read, not work. If someone is, however, interested in the fine meteorological details, we provide external links to reports to fill that niche. —Twigboy 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, our Manual of Style disagrees with that. Titoxd(?!?) 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbered Figures 

message: There is a “List of tribute songs to Hurricane Katrina.” But there also are many visual artists reacting on the catastrophe. See, for example: www.katrinaartists.com. I am working on a project myself with the intention to accomplish a fund raising that will help victims. As some of you remember, I placed a link to The Lost Easy earlier this week, but I am afraid it was considered to be spam. 
If it is not possible to place such a link, for which I don't see a reason because Wikipedia helps to promote musicians (with the link above), where else within Wikipedia (or on another site) could such a referral for visual artists be established? Please advise - any suggestions are welcome. Of course, I am trying to promote “The Lost Easy” and I am certain I could raise around S100,000.00 by selling the components. It takes a lot of effort and energy to do this. 
Also, I am new as an editor and will have to understand how everything works. Thomas GH Dorsch, Houston. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdorsch (talk • contribs) 
: There are several worthy funds for Katrina relief. One of the issues in this article in the days following Katrina was the addition of several humanitarian aid links. The concern at that time was that the article would turn into a linkfarm (and a potential nest of scam and exploitive "charity" links), so all were excluded. There were some exceptions, such as the American Red Cross, the Clinton-Bush fundraising effort and the Katrina telethon, which received extensive news coverage, therefore meriting inclusion.
: Your efforts are certainly to be applauded, however Wikipedia is not a promotional vehicle. Perhaps there are some blogs out there that would be willing to plug your site, allowing your Google ranking to increase. Send out press releases. Post your site on Katrina-themed message boards. These are the appropriate venues for promotion. I wish you luck. —Twigboy 15:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also / External Links 

message: 10-Sep-2006: For almost 2 weeks, in the Storm History section, the 2nd landfall (Buras) time had been incorrectly edited as "11:25pm...August 28" (rather than 6:10am on 29th), edited into the revision of 00:40, 29 August 2006 by "24.24.119.72" (IP address).  Too many wind-speed & satellite maps show the eye over Buras, near 6am, to consider the Buras landfall as "11:25pm" (not true), so I cited the TCR with "6:10 a.m." at that point.  These times are very solid:
:* Buras landfall at 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005; and,
:* Pearl River landfall at 10:00 a.m. (or 9:45) on August 29, 2005 (below Pearlington).
Several Katrina hurricane-eye maps also confirm those times. Perhaps hurricane-force winds started in Buras at 11:25pm, and that could be added. -Wikid77 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landfall times 

message: I archived the talkpage's discussions from May 2006 to August 2006. It's about 32 kb long. Abby724 03:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: (Fixed comment)
IM SORRY BUT I DONT KNOW HOW TO POST COMMENTS PROPERLY
please include a section on global warming and the effect that had on hurricane katrina!!!
cheers
james
:No, because it had no effect. Prove it. --Golbez 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So time will prove that which you cannot prove now. That's a hell of an argument. --Golbez 06:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The general consensus among meteorologists is that no one individual hurricane can be attributed to global warming, only general trends in hurricane formation. It would be incredibly misleading to label Hurricane Katrina as the result of global warming when warming might have had no effect whatsoever. (Katrina might have been equally powerful had it occurred in 1800; we don't know.) That is not to say that global warming does not or will not affect tropical cyclones, only that mention of global warming does not belong in the discussion and analysis of any one particular storm. —Cuiviénen 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the question (of whether Katrina was the result of Global Warming) comes up repeatedly, the Katrina article should contain a short review of the issue, including one or more of the above links, perhaps supplemented by more hard-science references.--RattBoy 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem is, again, that there is no way to tell if an individual hurricane is affected by global warming or not. Tropical cyclone includes (or should include) that discussion. Titoxd(?!?) 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global Warming

message: The article states a "Danziger incident". What exactly was this incident, somebody should explain it for people like me who do not know about it. 
Obi-w00t 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there you go --SGGH 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Danziger?

message: I am terrible with footnotes.  Would someone be able to adjust the first reference (the NHC's Tropical Cyclone Report) to reflect that an update was made on August 10th, 2006? Phimu222 17:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote Help 

message: Does anyone know of anything about the clean-up and reconstruction operations? Anything to add that could update the article more than a year after the event? I found this bit: "In late January 2006, about 200,000 people were once again living in New Orleans, less than half of the pre-storm population" and that pumping out the flood waters took 43 days - but not a lot else. Some of this could also go in Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, as there is not a lot there either (see my comment here). Both the "200,000 people" and "43 days" figures are lacking from that other article! Has anyone been synchronising this article and its daughter articles to make sure they are consistent? Carcharoth 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up and reconstruction operations? 

message: Is it normal for dates to be given without the years? I was reading this sentence here: "An ABC News Poll conducted on September 2, showed slightly more blame is being directed at state and local governments (75 percent) than at the Federal government (67 percent), with 44 percent blaming President Bush's leadership directly." - now I read that sentence on 1 October 2006, and it is not clear whether the poll was conducted in September 2005 or September 2006. I realise that giving the dates without years is common for recent events (within the last year), but as the event recedes into history, the dates need to be expanded to include the year. In fact, it is less hassle to just write the full date with the year, the first time round, as that is good encyclopedic practice and shows that you are writing for future readers, not just for people reading it here and now. Can anyone update this article (and other "current event" articles) to show the full dates with years? And where would be best to warn people writing about current events that this can happen? Maybe a date format could be used that reverts to including the year, after a year has passed? Carcharoth 08:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates lacking years 

message: In regards to the comment looking for references to reconstruction plans on the Mississippi Gulf Coast - please look to http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/special_packages/renewal/]for detailed plans from New Urbanist planners that worked with townseople as part of the Governor's Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal. These are plans and suggestions for recovery and rebuilding. Anicm123 00:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction