Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 4

message: :There are requirements to keep data in secure locations, such as off-site backup, but this is the data, like financial records.  This is a separate issue from making the data available to other organizations, such as on-line access to verify financial accounts.  Thus, many businesses in the storm hit area will be able to rebuild thanks to insurance and access to backup copies of computer records.  They just not functioning during the aftermath of the disaster.
:In the USA, Banks are required by law to inform their customers what accounts are covered by what Insurance.  Thus, the fact that a bank was physically wiped out is irrelevant when you are using an account with that bank that has a form of government insurance.  Checks written on accounts of banks, that got wiped out, are still legal tender, because of the government insurance, such as FDIC.
:The ability to use credit cards and ATM machines is dependent on the finanancial infrastructure where a person wishes to use them.  In other words, if the communications infrastructure to the ATM, or credit approval process, is wiped out, then it does not matter if you have money in the account, or your credit is Ok, because the local infrastructure cannot check that.
:A major impact for poor people in the USA, who are living from pay check to paycheck, or other check to check, is that various social benefits arrive on the first of the month, so that towards the end of the month, people are financially tapped out.  For example, elderly people, retired people, those on some kind of disability income ... they get their monthly installments at the beginning of them month.  Thus, the fact that the storm arrived at the end of August meant many poor people had depleted their monthly incomes, and did not have reserves to buy gasoline in advance of the storm.
:AlMac|(talk) 23:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banking 

message: :Traditional Land Line Telephones do have needs which can be disrupted by widespread storms, power outages, phone lines under water.
:Cell Phones need to intercommunicate using relay towers, which got knocked out by Katrina.  You may recall during 9/11 where cell phone communications were disrupted because the WTC served a function of being relay towers for cell phone communication.
::Police Radio similarly dependent on relay towers, which got knocked out by the storm.
:Satellite Phones work fine when land lines are broken, or cell phone relay towers knocked out, except during a time of solar flares, they too can be disrupted.
:Local authorities did not have backup communications for when the primary went down, because they did not anticipate this problem. 
:What was needed until local communications repaired, was for the military to provide in the sky something equivalent to a relay tower for cell phones and police radio.
:However, the military only did what they were asked to do, so if local state government does not think to ask for something, it does not get done.
AlMac|(talk) 00:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Telephone Communications 

message: I'm constantly stunned how quickly the two words global warming dissappear from this page.  Here is some evidence that the term should appear on the page:
* A google search "global warming katrina" yields 2.390.000 pages!
* Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott of GB recently made the link between Kyoto, global warming, sea temperatures and Katrina .
People are clearly making the link between global warming and Katrina.  But they get no backgound information whatsoever from this article.  Each time somebody adds information it dissapears magically after a few hours, no matter how cautious one formulates.
I strongly suggest to add a sentence to "Political effects" > "Environmental issues" along the line
:Katrina has caused a renewed interest in global warming and whether it is responsible for stronger hurricanes observed in recent years. See here for some information on the current state of discussion.
Thanks. MH 14:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming (again!) 

message: The account of the controversey over the two photos concludes with the line 'But according to the photographers, the person described as "looting" was seen taking the items from a store, and those described as "finding" found items in the water.' The 'finding' photographer is quoted in the Snopes articles, but does anyone have a source for the 'looting' photographer making any such statement?--The Bruce 04:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Snopes article quotes Salon.com, which says: 
Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that Martin says he witnessed the people in his images looting a grocery store. "He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods," Stokes said, "and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption." Maurreen (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I missed the Salon quote.--The Bruce 06:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race Issues (finding/looting) 

message: Who are the Nazis who keep erasing any external links? I lived in New Orleans and clarified and forecast many of facts about levee problems, timing, and weakness, as well as added much commentary on the multiple failures of leadership on my extensive blog entry, with many valuable links. Katrina Drowns Big Easy. You instantly delete my listing, but leave up the racist Conservative Citizens Council link for a week, which lists criminals from everywhere, as long as they are black. Obviously external links don't have to have the same neutral viewpoint strictures- so why is this the only entry that doesn't have a general list?
The Support Groups area of the External Links & Resources area keeps getting reverted. One of the reverters is calling 3RR on me, but whatever. I contend that the Support Group section is a relevant and helpful resource for the Katrina disaster and the people affected by it. The fact that I started the site is irrelevant. It's non-commercial and a directly-related, beneficial public service. Having the section there and an 11th External does not a link farm make. What's most disappointing is that some people here are more interested in counting links than helping people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.5.29 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be noted that Jacob above has a history of adding externals Wikipedia with sites he operates which other editors just remove. I say this not to imply that his edits are in bad faith, but rather that he is misunderstanding why we have externals on Wikipedia at all. The link he has been pushing in Katrina is directed to a mostly empty message forum he operates and it has been removed by multiple editors (including a couple of times by me). I am glad that Jacob has at least been respectful enough of our process to stop adding the link himself after I pointed out he was in violation of our rules... But it still doesn't make it an appropriate link in light of WP:NOT. --24.165.233.150 07:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Externals / Support groups 

message: The section: History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans originally had:
:The breaching of two levees protecting New Orleans caused water to flow unabated into the city.  Many homes are underwater in New Orleans and it is expected to take months to pump all the water out of the city. There remains a humanitarian disaster, with many people stranded due to flooding. Lawlessness persisted until September 3, 2005.  The federal disaster area was been placed under the control of FEMA (under Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff) and the National Guard on September 2, 2005.  
:A breakdown in command and communications among the local and state government first responders after Hurricane Katrina and subsequent levee failure and flooding in New Orleans on August 29, 2005 led to local civil problems and a desperate situation in await of secondary and tertiary national responders and NGO's.  New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin called for federal response in a "desperate SOS" put out in the media August 31, 2005 following his city's inability to control or put down looting, rape and murder jumping the gun on the state's governor Kathleen Blanco and acting beyond his power in the Posse Comitatus Act which prevents presidential direction of the National Guard without state level (Governor's) request for assistance.  As mayor, Nagin was not in a position to request the federal assistance officially.  The lawlessness had kept Red Cross and Salvation Army at bay unable to provide charitable relief during the crisis.  Louisiana Governor Blanco eventually declared a state of emergency authorizing local law enforcement and state assigned National Guard special powers in putting down looters on September 1, 2005 four days after Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour had declared martial law in his state and well after lawlessness had set into the city of New Orleans.  Blanco requested help from President Bush September 2, 2005 in a meeting along with Mayor Nagin aboard Air Force 1 at the New Orleans Louis Armstrong International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana.  The lawlessness was essentially ended the next day, September 3, 2005, by the federal responders under the control of President George W. Bush who had temporarily federalized state National Guard troops as requested by Blanco, Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff and Joint Task Force Katrina Commander Lt. General Russel Honore (National Guard ).
This is CLEARLY wrong on many counts. First of all, the section CLEARLY tries to blame local jurisdictions, and ends with federal system "heroically" fixing everything that was clearly a local problem. (See the first section) It just plain lacks NPOV. Even worse, it gets many things factually wrong and the whole section regarding the Posse Comitatus Act is completely ridiculous. The whole tone of the section is that it is LAYING BLAME, when this is supposed to be a history and summary of the breakdown of law and order. It's also weird for something like this to be on the front. It should be sorted by either importance or chronologically, of which "History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans" and "Declaration of State of Emergency versus Martial Law" should not be placed first. I've made significant corrections to the paragraph and moved the sections.
Further, the whole part about the Posse Comitatus Act IS NOT VALID. The page says that "The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;"
In addition, the later portion tries to lay blame the Blanco was late. Not true, assistance requests were made as early as the 28th of August.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.28.90 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2005
:Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed.  Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills.  New contributors are always welcome. 4.232.105.59 09:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I put in the bit about "Breaching of the levees protecting New Orleans caused water to flow unabated into the city.", and you removed it citing POV. If this is POV, then tell me how can I put in NPOV? If there is another POV, then how did all the water get into New Orleans? Leistung 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work!. Invites the question as to what should be in the main article. Is it just a summary, witrh pointers to the meaty bits? In which case, all lengthy detail in it should be removed to the "sub-articles". This detail is probably duplicated anyway. Leistung 06:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Invites the question.  (SEWilco 06:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. I changed it! Leistung 17:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There needs to be addressed some place the issue of people without food or water, for whatever reasons, does this justify looting to get some, or are you supposed to starve and hydrate to death? AlMac|(talk) 16:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans 

message: Someone has been occasionally rolling back the externals section to twoish day old version using a mix of dynamic IPs and open proxies. They are unresponsive to communication and make no other edits. (some examples of the dynamic ips include   ) I am not sure why they keep doing this, but I have observed that a couple of the links being reinserted were ones which we removed because our consensus on avoiding fradulant donation sites causes us to only link to large/mainstream sites for donations.  In any case, these edits should be reverted as soon as they are seen.  It is not really possible to block this user because they have come from so many IPs. Thanks for your help. --24.165.233.150 09:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism to be on the lookout for: 

message: PEOPLE ARE PUUTING PUKING GROSS PICTURES ON THIS SITE.
:Ordinarily we have to weather the storm.  One more revert and it goes to admin for block procedure request. Don't spend ANY energy in dialog with the individual, it feeds their psychological need for attention.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FREEZE EDITING 

message: one more revert and off to Admin report/violation 3RR.
Keep eye on the storm this vandal is up to.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  216.194.7.238  

message: I have difficulty editing, because every time I try to edit, someone has edited a section title into 
<CODE>===Section Title===</CODE>
or
<CODE>=== Section Title ===</CODE>
Now, I looked up from the help pages that the correct way to make section titles in code was by actually separating equations and a section title with spaces. Whilst I thought otherwise, I was trying to 'fix' this by removing spaces, which in fact seemed to work. Now I have trouble editing a page, because once I attempt to edit this, I might accidentally remove a section [because someone seemed to code a section in a (seemingly) wrong way] and then also get into an editing conflict. 
- Mardus 17:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty editing (again) 

message: :Computer Infrastructure Co-dependency implications
:Disaster planning for home owners and renters and small business like nursing homes
: Disaster recovery planning for business
:GAO http://www.gao.gov/index.html is the US agency whose job it is, on behalf of Congress, to investigate government agencies and the private sector readiness to deal with all sorts of topics. Here is their website directory of investigations they have conducted into disaster preparedness in general. Several reports by the US Government Accountability Office were into US Corps of Engineers work to protect the city of New Orleans from hurricanes, flooding, etc.  A lesson learned might be what they focused on, such as rules for travel expenses for employees, as opposed to what they should have focused on, obvious only in retrospect.
:Google's katrina Resource Rirectory
:FEMA's Are you Ready? guide for individual, family, and community preparedness for anything.
::Most computer users have heard of the concept of user friendly, well FEMA seems to have a talent for user hostile. 
:Homeland Security gudiance on personal disaster planning, such as the notion that you can protect your home with duct tape.
:NGA USA's National Governor's Association
:OMB (USA gov's Office of Management and Budget) listed inadequacies in FEMA's Disaster Response Preparedness such as in response times to Hurricane Isabel in 2003.
::OMB is to US Administration what GAO is to Congress.  While GAO investigates US Gov agencies on behalf of Congress, through the rose colored glasses (distorted vision) of whatever gripe they were told to investigate, so that they can miss what in retrospect is more important, OMB spoon feeds Congress as a gate keeper (agencies that testify to Congress must clear their info with OMB censorship, which is why the give and take questions on C-Span are so critical ... they can elicit info that OMB did not know to censor) for what the Administration thinks it is important for Congress to know, heavily influenced by the President's philosophy on government.  Yeah, I know POV needs reweirte before using this some place on the main pages.
AlMac|(talk) 16:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Mulp and Mac. How very true. As the song goes "When will they ever learn". The mistakes made in Katrina will happen again, somewhere, no necessarily in the US. Your reasoning is set out very well set out, and is would be good to add a new section. As for POV, there are so many POVs in these articles, that it would appear they cancel one another out, making it (hopefully) NPOV.    Leistung 06:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Very Sad info in the TV news.
* FEMA had been very slow to respond to past Hurricanes, experienced storms of protest not quite as intense as in aftermath of Katrina, this led to the agency figuring out how to fix responses in future disasters, and there was clear evidence they doing a better job, then in the reorganization into DHS, the priorities changed, such that it was no longer important to be prepared to protect against the giant natural disasters, but to look good in the fight against terrorism, and to do pork all over the USA in minor disasters.
* There is a federal law about shredding old documents in which "old" means from the last administration, so that when new people elected as leaders they can do what they were elected to do, and totally ignore whatever was learned under previously elected people from other political party.
AlMac|(talk) 18:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VeeWire/message/595 Key links] 

message: I am a volunteer on a http://192.122.183.218/wiki/index.php/PeopleFinderVolunteer wiki an attempt to combine all missing person info message boards, using volunteer time to enter each missing/found person into the neworleansnetwork.org database.  With everyone's help, the New Orleans Network's PeopleFinder will be a comprehensive list of missing persons, so that the search and connection efforts will be easier.
One of the message boards that is helping us by sending us data in the proper format is Craiglist, which is linked to in the external links.  Each person that goes and posts on Craiglist then also will probably post on 15 other missing person links, and we will be working by hand to re-enter the info into the PeopleFinder.  It would be of great service to survivors and their loved ones, and also to people looking to volunteer time (NOT money), if our PeopleFinder and the accompanying volunter project were linked along with Craigslist.  
Please let me know if this is possible!!!  (I tried linking, but I see now that it was in violation of the rules.)  We're trying to get massive amounts of work done and, quite frankly, there are dozens and dozens of missing person lists currently on the net, it seems ridiculous to only list 4.  
Eeblet 21:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think linking to New Orleans Network and to the KatrinaHelp info wiki PeopleFinder section seems a good idea... as an aggregator it's arguably a better choice than any single missing persons DB for inclusion. NOTE, though, that as of right now, the NON DB machine is down due to high traffic, as I understand it, and people can't help transcribe so it may make more sense to postpone putting a link in. See  ++Lar 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The database has found a home, but the searchability is not currently up.  The PeopleFinderVolunteer wiki has been wildly succesful, and work is close to done.  I hope that when the database has enough hosting to support it, that Wiki editors are willing to leave up an external link to PeopleFinder -- the craigslists boards will just be a subset of it, so it really doesn't make sense to have craigslist and not PeopleFinder.  Eeblet 16:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combining all survivor/missing person info into one PeopleFinder 

message: Here is a Wired News story about an effort by one Katrina victim to let people geographically locate their homes on a Google map of the region.
AlMac|(talk) 21:14, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina victims wiki 

message: This may be talk-filter; if so, my apologies.  I'd like to suggest that people archive any copies they have of government and aide agency websites, and to be on the lookout for changes to those websites.  Already, we have seen IEM remove some of their press releases, in which they boast about themselves, out of fear that in the aftermath of all this, they'll be held responsible; much the same applies to what FEMA's been up to on their website.
This wikipedia may be the only authoratative, true source of factual information once the coverup begins.  And you *know* it's going to be one helluva coverup.  Don't let the bastards get away with it!
:That's a job that's more for places like cryptome.org. Wikipedia also is not in the role of being the exposer of cover-ups, due to the Neutral point of view policy. Also, there are many, many sources of factual information besides Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not always 100% reliable either. Don't oversell what we do here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As an editor I would clearly refrain from commenting on "coverups".  This is not a blog, a newspaper or a place for TALKING KEYBOARDERS.Kyle Andrew Brown 03:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tracking Other Web Changes 

message: Anyone explain what MRE-s are? Meal, Ready-to-Eat?
:Yes. —Cryptic (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disaster relief response 

message: I have corrected the landfall intensity at Grand Isle, LA to 140 mph, based on this statement from the NHC:
000
WTNT62 KNHC 291116
TCUAT2
HURRICANE KATRINA TROPICAL CYCLONE UPDATE
NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL
610 AM CDT MON AUG 29 2005
...KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA...
AT 610 AM CDT...1110Z...HURRICANE KATRINA HAS MADE LANDFALL IN
SOUTHERN PLAQUEMINES PARISH LOUISIANA...JUST SOUTH OF BURAS...AS A
CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE.  MAXIMUM WINDS ARE ESTIMATED AT 140 MPH TO
THE EAST OF THE CENTER.
FORECASTER PASCH
: Additional confirmation of the number from NOAA  (I couldn't find the advisory above in the archive).  The 145 figure is probably coming from the 6:00 AM advisory, which was shortly before it actually made landfall. Peyna 04:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intensity At Louisiana Landfall 

message: www.scipionus.com
Its an colaborative map of the affected area, with information on flood level, power and water statuas and general damage assessments made by the site visitors (much like a wiki). Dont you guys think it would be a nice addition? 146.164.26.85 13:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Should this be added?

message: This article, or one of its immediate siblings, needs a 'ways to help the relief effort' section.  See the tsunami articles for a style guide... +sj + 23:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ways to help section

message: There should be more pictures here! There are barely any pictures of the massive damage it caused. There should be more. bob rulz 05:44, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Go take some! ... or if you're not in the effected area, please go find some photographers that are ... and convince them to submit their work under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA licenses (or the public domain) to the wikimedia commons. Wikipedia doesn't write itself and we always need more photographers! --Gmaxwell 06:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pictures that are free license are available at several U.S. government sites: including the White House, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard. They place them in archives, releases on the disaster typ.le places.   If you find a photo and do not know how to upload it into Wiki Commons, paste the link here and I will upload it for you and provide the name/location in WikiCommons.Kyle Andrew Brown 12:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need for More Graphic Images 

message: The article starts out "Hurricane Katrina, one of the worst natural disasters in U.S. history."  This fact is purely emotional and should be removed.  It is still way to early to determine whether this is one of the worst natural disasters in US history.--Gephart 15:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the "historical context" section provides enough corroboration for this assertion. Also, the total damage is expressed as "likely to be the most expensive Atlantic hurricane of all time."  --Twigboy 16:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think its OK to show a little emotion occasionally in an Encylopedia. Otherwise it would make very dry reading. Most people would agree that this is one of the worst natural disasters in US history. There aren't too many others that I can think of of that magnitude. Leistung 19:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There's no question that sentence is correct. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable facts

message: Winds: the info box shows maximum winds at 175 mph, but the right term is maximum sustaind winds, as it was published at several meterological sites during the storm. I think this should be corrected. Also gusts of 215 mph have been reportet and should be added to the info box. For reference http://modis-atmos.gsfc.nasa.gov/
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.227.142 (talk • contribs) 06/09/2005 18:23
signed :))
Peter Walther (Wilhelm.peter 19:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll add "sustained" to it but I'm hesitant to add a section for gusts; most older storms, I don't think, have that data. It's also not as important, IMO, but I could be wrong. --Golbez 19:31, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
thanks for the first step :). 
Right often the gusts are not published, but i a storm extreme like this one the data gathered by meterologists and the hurrican hunter planes should find a way into the page, anyone with a other opinion?
(Wilhelm.peter 19:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Gusts are not considered relevant for the categorization of a hurricane, so IMO the sustained wind speed is appropriate for the infobox, and the gust data is appropriate for the article where it can be put into context. Plus, it makes it inconsistent with other hurricane articles, where the 215 number might be used as the definitive measure of peak wind, when 175 would be the basis for comparison. --Twigboy 20:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, "maximum sustained winds" are typically an estimate. If you look at Hurricane Andrew, the max officially recorded gust (after the fact, of course) was one mile per hour slower than the maximum sustained winds. In fact, once you get that fast, EVERYTHING is an estimate, because wind monitoring equipment tends to be destroyed by such things. (It's like trying to measure 5000 degree heat with a glass thermometer - it will melt long before it gives you a useful reading) There's n no problem mentioning gusts in statistics, but it crowds the infobox. --Golbez 20:25, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
I, have added the gusts to the context, hope i found a place all can agree,,,, :)
(Wilhelm.peter 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, the reverse is probably true.  The wind readings are always estimates, because it's just impossible to know what the wind really is at any given point in the hurricane at any given time.  Since most of the data comes from NOAA, and NOAA uses imperial mmeasurements, I would defer to the 160 mph as being the "precise" reading, and the 257 being the converted reading (in which case, someone needs to learn significant digits). Peyna 22:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Since the 160 was rounded, the 257 should also be rounded; so actually 260 km/h would be an appropriate conversion. Peyna 22:39, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rubbish. That would just be confusing. Unless you explain, by quoting your number of significant figures, then people would think the two figures of 160 mph and 260 kph were equivalent, which is grossly misleading. Also, just 160 mph on its own does not imply it was a rounded figure (though in this case the background information shows that it is). How do you distinguish between 160 mph as being rounded up or down, and a precise reading of 160 mph? The answer is that you have to say what the accuracy of the reading is. If you use 'significant figures rounding' to round 158 mph to 160 mph, then you can express the accuracy as 160 mph +/- 5mph, which is equivalent to saying that 160 mph is quoted to 2 significant figures. Compare with 160 mph +/- 0.5 mph, which is equivalent to quoting to 3 significant figures. 194.200.237.219 11:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Not sure what happened, but it looks broken now Peyna 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Are there any reasons for not drying and filling up Lake Pontchartrain? It would create new land on which to build and definitely eliminate the threat it composes. The threat from the sea could then be countered similarly, through the widening of the marshland by slowing the Mississippi. To date it seems that there are just the two major plans: building higher levees or abandoning major parts of the city.
:It's a big lake. It's also a shipping lane, it links directly to the Gulf of Mexico, and canals link the lake to the river. --Golbez 18:47, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Where are you going to divert the various rivers that I assume are feeding it? ~~ N (t/c) 19:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: A more realistic approach is a storm surge barrier similar to the Thames Barrier at the entrance to the lake. Previously Joseph Suhayda and others have proposed modifying the I-10 causeway to provide a storm barrier. As for resilting the wetlands, that has been something that has been sought since the 1960s, often with opposition from shipping interests and others that did not want the Mississippi modified for non-business reasons. It has only been 15 years since the substantial slowing of wetland loss, but it had not been reversed by 2005 by any means. This gives you an idea of the vast political minefield involved. In any event, please see a site such as , which is devoted to these problems. Talk pages are not for general chatter about a topic; they should be used only for discussion relevant to improving the article. Thanks! --Dhartung | Talk 20:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Congress approved a tidal surge barrier in 1977 but it was blocked by an environmental law suit.  Alan 01:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for Existence of Lake, Considering the possibilities to protect New Orleans 

message: I suggest moving 7 above 6: Disaster Relief above Economic Effects.
The article's first strength of content was Economics but we have punched up Disaster Relief and it is growing in emphasis.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Section 

message: can we work on a timeline?  My understanding is that either 40% or 60% of the LA Guard is in Iraq.  and that Bush didn't Nationalize guard units from other states for four days. I'm not sure this is right though. I found the timeline but it needs some work I recomend CNN. 132.241.245.49 
:Not sure what you have in mind for a timeline but I suggest being careful to construct a timeline without a bias towards trying to prove a political point.Kyle Andrew Brown 02:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure the original poster will learn the meaning of "nationalize" before contributing.  (SEWilco 03:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A timeline has been started here: Timeline of Hurricane Katrina  --noösfractal 03:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  time line? 

message: Can we get some type of real stuff that's happened with the aid in New Orleans and Mississippi.  I think it was TWO DAYS before Bush even responded to this disaster and FEMA certainly was not helping people.  How about mention that other organizations were really doing the work?  I'm pretty sure World Vision and Compassion International volunteers were there.  I'm sure other religious organizations as well.  This page certainly glorifies the Federal Aid and Government about this situation and those things certainly aren't true.  KagomeShuko 03:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  FEMA and other relief aids/government 

message: IMO it should now not start with 90 billion, as the insurance estimates are at round about 30 and US Government is sending 60 into FEMA (no doubt they will be spend, i hope better than for forms to fill), other opinions?
(Wilhelm.peter 20:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: More, not less, is probably more accurate. Insurance estimates are intially low for various reasons (legal, politics, dragging feet, full picture not yet known, whatever.) I believe the infobox says 100-200 and that may well change for the worse. Just now we're getting images in from remote areas that have been literally wiped off the map. --Southpaw018 19:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Insurance estimates are low because not every thing that is damaged was insured. Peyna 16:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Private (non-government) insurers do not cover flooding in any case, an issue which may need to be clarified when defining "insurance loss"? Government flood insurance programmes don't cover things like loss of use which are covered for non-flood damages by private insurers. --carlb 13:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  damage in US $ 

message: As currently written, the article states that all levee failures occurred on August 30th.  The first levee failure actually occurred during the storm on August 29th, when the Eastern wall of the Industrial Canal levee was breached.  This resulted in the sudden and devastating flooding of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans and areas to the East (St. Bernard Parish and New Orleans East).  
209.214.104.155 01:24, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See here  for a more accurate timeline. Some of the summary sections need to be rewritten as the side articles are improved and updated. 194.200.237.219 09:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: IMO should the levee failure timeline be removed here and refered to page:  as it does not make sense to have it done twice and as staded above the one her it is perfectly wrong by what is known today.
(Wilhelm.peter 13:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levee Failure Timeline 

message: "It is important..."?  Could someone rewrite that?  :-)--Baylink 02:45, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The [[lede] is getting *awfully* editorial 

message: This rather excellent gallery of photos is released under  so they're good for Wikipedia, people working on this series should have a look.--nixie 04:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Images

message: The statement on global warming has been involved in a bit of an edit war of late. 
This is an attempt at a resolution. 
The original text read something like this.
::Many scientists have stated that global warming was a factor responsible for the rise in ocean surface temperatures that may have caused Katrina to go from a tropical storm to a devastating hurricane as it crossed the Gulf of Mexico between south Florida and New Orleans.   Other scientists acknowledge the possible long term effects of global warming on cyclonogenesis, but attribute the strength of Hurricane Katrina to a 12 year cycle.  
User Peyna and I Fluxaviator came to this tentative compromise.
::Global warming has been suggested by some studies as being a factor for the influx of increasingly stronger hurricanes, including Katrina.   Other scientists acknowledge the possible long term effects of global warming on cyclonogenesis, but attribute the strength of Hurricane Katrina to a 12 year cycle.  
User 24.165.233.150 has deleted both but in discussion has suggested this instead.
::The remarkable intensity of recent tropical cyclones such as Katrina has renewed public interest in global warming as a factor in global climatic change, this is discussed in Tropical cyclone#Long_term_trends_in_cyclone_activity. 
I think we can come to a happy medium. --Fluxaviator 04:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is covered in depth (from a more political angle) in the Alleged causes of Hurricane Katrina and in depth (from a more general scientific angle) in Tropical cyclone. The versions which stand in each of these articles have undergone extensive editing from people of many views, and also reflect expert input. A third version of this information could not hope to achieve the oversight that the material in the other two articles has had, and would serve no special purpose. I propose that if global warming must be mentioned at all, that it should be mentioned only to link to the Alleged causes article.  If the alleed causes article should happen to be deleted, I propose that the text from global warming either be merged directly, or dropped entirely leaving only a link to the scientific discussion in Tropical Cyclone.  Any other course of action will result in factually incorrect material being added to the article yet again, for example the claim that there has been any study which shows Katrina was caused by global warming. --Gmaxwell 21:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: On the public interest claim, which BTW was never suggested for this article, is no longer the prefered wording... But the fact that interest in the subject has increased can be directly demonstrated by a list of media links, and as much was directly claimed in the CNN article. I haven't seen anyone argue otherwise, and NOR doesn't require us to provide cites when stating the obvious. :)  --Gmaxwell 21:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Warming issue resolution attempt 

message: There's been a number claims of censorship of the press on some influential blogs, some of them actually documentable, some clearly bunk. I got ticked off at the misinformation so I decided to document what can be confirmed here Hurricane_Katrina#Claims_of_restrictions_on_the_media. It's important because censorship was a big deal in the Iraq invasion (media embedding and the coffin photos controversy). Sbwoodside 06:28, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You bet! Show and tell! Leistung 10:23, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

text: It's well-known that Google only updates the image search index periodically. It's very poor at current events. This has been brought up before in connection with Iraq. --Dhartung | Talk 18:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  press censorship issues 

message: The image is Image:R1422419068.jpg Ryan Norton T | @ | C 08:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image in death toll section has no caption or copyright information 

message: Folks, please look at Wikipedia:Summary style, don't add large chunks with long quotes or citations or political effects in this article, please include those in the relevant subarticles.  That's the purpose of the Main article: link
*Hurricane Katrina disaster relief: should contain the what, how, etc. facts about the disaster relief, information on when troops or food were delivered to whom and by who is appropriate, not speculation for why they didn't happen fast enough or who was to blame should not be in this article, except to note that it is covered in:
*Political effects of Hurricane Katrina: this article can contain all those criticisms etc, longer quotes etc. 
Thanks. Lexor|Talk 15:21, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
:: I spent about 30 minutes the other day cleaning up one of the sections to make it more of a summary and moving the detailed information to the other article.  I came back a day later and it was in worse shape that before I started.  I gave up trying.  It's going to be a losing battle until this thing settle downs in a few weeks. Peyna 17:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep these sections summaries!  Push detail to subarticles 

message: This is a logical breakdown.  Just having distant states and international seems unbalanced.
Remember it is against wikipedia policy to delete, but it is nice to add to a section.
-Thanks
:It's also against Wikipedia policy to have gigantic articles covering every possible minute detail about a subject, but we don't seem to follow that here either. Peyna 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I'm having a hard time accepting a city having the resources to find shelter for 100,000 people throughout a five-ten State region.  Where would you have a bus caravan deliver 30 groups of 1,000 people or 6 groups of 5,000 people?  Isn't such a mass interstate evacuation a matter for federal government? Mulp 15:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please keep Federal, state, local, international, and non-governmental sections 

message: You've got one for the red cross and I personally like the salvation army better.
:The Salvation Army, The Red Cross, and Samaritan's Purse were three key agencies that did a lot of good work in south Florida after Hurricane Andrew. The United Methodist Church and the Mennonites were also highly significant. They had somewhat different areas of emphasis, and there was a lot of informal linking, where, if one agency could not accomplish something efficiently, another was called in. Pollinator 05:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
:Given the ease with which people can set up donation scams, it is not a good idea for Wikipedia to permit an expansion of this type of area, which could quickly become a link-list (not encyclopedic) to dubious sites (anyone can add, but who's going to double-check the 501(c)(3) filings?). The American Red Cross is a Congressionally-chartered non-profit with specific responsibility for disaster relief, so its reputation is not in dispute. Adding anything else opens the list to POV problems and scams. --Dhartung | Talk 18:19, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the Salvation Army doing a great job. I even saw on my TV a plug from President Bush. When asked by a lady as to who could help her. He said "Why don't you go to the Salvation Army". Maybe they should co-ordinate the rescue efforts! Leistung 19:58, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not have a donation link for salvation army? 

message: Perhaps there should be a link to a wiki article on [this http://www.give.org/reports/index.asp service] of USA's Better Business Bureau to list organizations that claim to be in the charity business, which of them are willing to have their financial statements audited by the Better Business Bureau, and which of them are able to show that they do in fact meet certain standards that we expect of a charity, like the donated money going to the victims, instead of most of it being used to send the fund collection administrators on a vacation in Bermuda, or wherever. AlMac|(talk) 21:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How about link to GIVE.ORG 

message: This text has found its way into the Intro:
"President Bush initially did not alter a schedule of vacationing and unrelated photo opportunities in the wake of the hurricane, but after journalists angrily confronted administration figures including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff about the lack of food and water at designated evacuation shelters, the President finally began to schedule hurricane-related photo opportunites.
In the wake of the federal government's mismanagement, attempts were made to blame victims including nurses left to hand-pump respirators in darkness and nursing-home residents. These fell by the wayside as Time Magazine revealed that the director of FEMA, Mike Brown, appeared to have qualified for the position soully on the basis of his having been the roommate of the last director in college, and the last director's having had a position in the Bush campaign. At this writing, Mr. Brown has yet to be fired for either his incompetence or the falisfied resume he provided."
It should not be in the intro, but maybe elsewhere in the Article/Related Articles. The Intro should be very short and to the point. It should give the reader an overview. What it should not do is go into any depth as to what the "management" was doing or what they or others were thinking. Surely the fact that there was a Hurricane called Katrina, it broke the levees and destroyed New Orleans, or that 1 million people were evacuated is much more important than George Bush's photo oppurtunities,  Mike Brown's being a mate of some big fish, or that journalists are angry. Leistung 07:00, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! prior to this edit the intro was short and sweet - very nice indeed. The intro should probably mention that there's controversy regarding the government's response though. But this text should possibly be in the political effects article. Sbwoodside 22:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 2 

message: This edit  by User:216.11.23.2 on 13:40, 12 September 2005 deleted more than 50% of the article. I restored it but there have been edits between then and my restoration (on 15:04, 12 September 2005). I don't have the time to try to restore those edits, but perhaps someone can go through them and try to see if there's anything that was lost (there were some rv's in that intervening period too...) Sbwoodside 19:15, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The sad thing is that even after the unilateral deletion the article is still incredibly bloated. Peyna 21:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Too much trivia, large sections comparing it to other historical events to give "context". They all need to be moved or deleted as they have nothing to do with Katrina.Stbalbach 21:57, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree. The extensive list of other disasters is unnecessary. That list would be better under a separate "natural disasters" entry to which Hurricane Katrina could be linked. Djeaux 01:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and deleted the entire section, this information is covered extensively elsewhere, i.e. List_of_major_natural_disasters_in_the_United_States. Peyna 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Comparison was made at the time to other events, as people are trying to guage the size of Katrina, as Stbalbach also mentioned. However as time moves on, people will get a sense of how big Katrina is. The most obvious similar size disaster is the 1906 Earthquake. It was not the biggest as far as magnitude on the Richter scale goes, in American history, but it sure did plenty of damage. In my experience, major events such as Katrina seem to grow in importance, so there is less need to compare things. I'm sure the articles on Katrina will trim down to what it important as time goes on. Leistung 06:24, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  major deletion missed, reconstruction may be needed 

message: A desperate cry of "Don't forget us!" sweeps South Mississippi. And it should. New Orleans is getting 95% of the Katrina coverage, Biloxi and Gulfport only 4%, and the truely affected area- Bay St. Louis and Waveland is getting 1%. 
The news of my school- Pass Christian Middle School, a Camille survivor- reached me 2 weeks after the storm. All I could recognize were the old, creaky auditorium seats my classmates and I would sit in before school. The memories just in them! Mr. Storey yelling at us 6th graders last year- yea, those were the good times.
I never realized how great just an air conditioning could be- until I didn't have one. No showers, no running water- all in the wonderfull 119°F heat index.
My family still suffers down there, while I sit in the nice Stockton, Illinois weather. I feel sort of guilty- seeing as I still have a house and I'm in 75°F weather. 
Please- if you're a Katrina survivor, write your name and town- and story, if you like- on this page. Thank you!
Also- PLEASE DO NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES! I only want to submit this account for the world.
Sarah Nazaretian
Long Beach
:I appreciate your call for concern; however, a Wikipedia article about the Hurricane and its talk page are not the place for these kinds of things (endless personal accounts, etc.)  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Not a blog.  Peyna 03:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add to what I said earlier, you do bring up a good point, which is also evidenced in the Wikipedia article, and that is the extensive focus on the situation in New Orleans.  Of course, part of the reason is places like Waveland, MS were home to about 6,000 people, where as New Orleans was home to almost 500,000 people. Peyna 03:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: There is maybe too much focus on New Orleans. Other areas have been devastated too. Please add anything that you feel is relevant or important to the Hurricane related articles. You could add "a personal account". For example, here is one about the San Francisco Earthquake.   These are very important in a historical context.  Leistung 06:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with the need for information from more areas, but please remember to keep all enteries encyclopedic! I know that this is a very personal and emotional subject, especially for anyone who was directly affected by it, but please bear in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog. -Loren 07:08, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

text: As a person who is "on the scene" in South Mississippi, I find it somewhat disturbing that the media have focussed on New Orleans. The plight of isolated rural families is very desperate even now nearly 2 weeks after the storm. We are talking about people who are just as poor as those in New Orleans & who are currently cut off by impassable roads, lacking adequate healthcare, food & water supplies. In that regard, New Orleans enjoys much better distribution channels & thanks to the media, is getting a lot more attention. However, I also recognize that I feel too strongly about this particular subject to write NPOV material here. Djeaux 20:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misery After the Storm 

message: A timeline of the Katrina disaster seems invaluable, it seems to have disappeared off the article where I claim it is very appropriate.  I speak of this link:
Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina, should we not add it back? User:GreatAlfredini
:Much of what is covered in the timeline is covered elsewhere; a timeline can be valuable to help the reader understand the chronologic order of events when it is significant to their understanding, but in this instance, it is arguably not that valuable aside from being trivia. Peyna 04:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's linked from the Katrina template. It may not need a specific reference in-article; perhaps in See also --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If someone thinks the time line is trivia then it needs to be fixed.  Some kind of time line is essential to deal with allegations that people were given adequate notice to evacuate, that assistance to the people who could not get out got to them in a reasonable time period, how many days food they supposed to store, where rising waters could not get to it, and when they were given that specific warning, to store food so rising waters not get to it, because some people not think warnings given in sufficient time. AlMac|(talk) 06:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina timeline disappeared, restore it? 

message: The plethora of images down the left side of the article seem to be causing a lot of page formatting issues (the numerous subsections cause similar problems); I removed some of the ones I considered to be surplus to try to correct this, but it could still use some work.  The page is slowly becoming more and more sloppy because of information being haphazardly added. Peyna 05:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image issues 

message: I don't understand this whatsoever, in the death toll summary, it says there are 659 confirmed dead, then on the right hand side it lists close to a 1000. The right hand side should match the written text, should it not.
:(Please sign edits to talk pages.) The numbers should agree, but when they are in separate locations they often get out of synch as editors don't realize they have to change it in two places. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hurricane Katrina death toll double speak 

message: Why is there a  NPOV tag on the "Advance weather forecasts" section? Rmhermen 12:48, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV tag

message: There are enough phony stories circulating that it might be worth a section in the external links identifying what's wrong, for future reference, since some people may try to edit additions here, unaware that these stories are false. AlMac|(talk) 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos are clearly a joke. Although Bush supporters seem to think that he's the first president that anyone's ever treated with any disrespect, making fun of the president is a time-honored American tradition (Thomas Nast, e.g., skewered Andrew Johnson with regularity). I wouldn't waste a lot of space or time on the "phony pictures."--RattBoy 11:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Legends 

message: Here's an urban legend link on some of the phony pictures going around about what the President was allegedly doing while the disaster unfolded. AlMac|(talk) 16:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The photos are clearly a joke. Although Bush supporters seem to think that he's the first president that anyone's ever treated with any disrespect, making fun of the president is a time-honored American tradition (Thomas Nast, e.g., skewered Andrew Johnson with regularity). I wouldn't waste a lot of space or time on the "phony pictures."--RattBoy 11:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bush Bashing 

message: Here's an urban legend link on a phony story about Gov & Mayor allegedly refusing to declare Katrina as an emergency. AlMac|(talk) 17:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gov & Mayor Bashing 

message: Ok, enough of this. $200 billion is the estimated cost of reconstruction. This includes: wreckage clearing, building reconstruction, levee boosting, swamp restoring, relief costs, temporary housing costs, electricity in the shelters, and on and on and on. That is why reconstruction is never included in the total storm cost. Hasn't ever been in the past and it should be included now because it would exaggerate comparison with other storms. Current insured damages are estimated at $43 billion. That was the last I heard. That would put total damages around $86 billion.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 20:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The NHC will release the damage estimates at the end of the season. --tomf688<TALK> 02:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Damage estimates

message: This article could definitely benefit from a re-orgnization of subheadings.  As it is, we're going in about 4 different directions.
Major headings could include:
*Intro
*Pre-Landfall events (including storm formation, preparatory orders, etc.)
*Immediate effects (damage as a direct result of the storm, maybe broken down geographically)
*Short-term effects (New Orleans flooding, effects with impact only 1-2 weeks following the storm)
*Long-term effects
Now, under those categories, some of the other things we have might fit; but part of the reason for the excessive bulk of non-encyclopedic information is because we've got way more categories than are needed.  Some of them might be worth of their own article, but they aren't worth more than a mention here.  Peyna 22:09, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Re-organization of Article

message: According to this article, teh maximum windspeed was 185 mph. However, as far as I know, the highest confirmed sustained wind readings were only 175 mph. Where did 185 mph come from? bob rulz 02:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure - although I did read that Slidell Airport had a 176 mph sustained wind (according to the mayor of the city), so I expect that Katrina will be officially declared Category 5 at landfall at 180 mph (the pressure and surge are more in line with Cat-5 storms). In addition, the 125 mph landfall at the LA-MS line, I think, will be reclassified at about 155 mph as a strong Category 4 (pressure at the time was 925 mb and the storm surge was still enormous). CrazyC83 03:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I trust the NHC/NOAA a lot more than distant word of mouth; the speed at initial landfall in LA was around 140; 140-176 is a HUGE difference; and generally hurricanes don't get stronger after they move inland.  The 175 mph winds were on Sunday while Katrina was still out at sea.  Storm surge is more than a factor of wind; the sea floor and land structures play a huge impact in it, so it is not a reliable determination of hurricane intensity.  Peyna 04:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The Slidell report seems to be another rumor turned "official" report, as with the Weather Channel report of reclassification. The mayor of Slidell did indeed issue on Sept 10 an announcement referencing 176mph sustained winds which attributed the Slidell NWS office as the source.  However, the last [Katrina Post Storm Report] from the same office mentions nothing of such high winds in Slidell. All other NWS and NHC information points to 140mph at first landfall. This also agrees with the current NHC analysis.  Noting that the mayor's announcement matches an earlier NWS/NHC report of Katrina prior to landfall and after a little searching on the web, I suspect that the mayor was propogating misinformation that originated with WWL news reports.  I suppose there would be something reassuring about knowing that Katrina was a Cat 5 at landfall, but the cruel reality is that even a lesser storm on the Saffir-Simpson scale can pack tremendous energy. Rshepard 00:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The highest sustained wind speed I can find in the NHC advisory archives is 150 KT (~ 173 mph).  In the NHC analysis information I thought I saw a 155 KT (~ 178 mph) recalculation, but I can't put my fingers on the source right now.  Maximum gusts reported in the advisories was 185 KT (~ 213 mph).  Maybe that's where someone got the 185 mph...albeit mistranslated and misapplied.Rshepard 01:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 185 mph?

message: I got this in a forwarded e-mail & plan to mine the "original sources" for any data factoids not yet in the article. There may be some copyright issues here, so by going to "original sources" and re-writing the facts, that may cover it. AlMac|(talk) 02:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Katrina Government Statistics Update 

message: * Federal disaster declarations are covering 90,000 square miles of affected areas. 
* National Response Plan mobilizes resources of the entire federal government to support response and recovery. 
* 71,100 unified federal personnel have been deployed 
* More than 48,500 lives have been saved and rescued 
* 122,000 people are currently housed in shelters throughout all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
* 509,000 households have received $1.1 billion in disaster assistance. 
* Commodities delivered to date include: 
** 23.3 million MREs 
** 58.8 million liters of water 
** 1.7 million pounds of ice 
** 32 tons of basic first aid supplies 
** More than 600 buses to transport evacuees 
* The United States Coast Guard rescued more than 23,800 lives in the wake of Katrina. 
* More than 30,000 volunteer medical personnel have registered with Health and Human Services to assist in recovery. 
* The American Red Cross, in coordination with the Southern Baptist Convention, has served more than 7.6 million hot meals and more than 6.6 million snacks to survivors of Hurricane Katrina. 
* 43,000 National Guard are on the ground in three states. 
* 15 Disaster Recovery Centers open in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas to gain assistance from recovery specialists of local, state, federal and volunteer agencies. 
* List of Government Waivers and Dispensations Authorized for Hurricane Katrina Response
==== DHS National Response Plan ====
http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml AlMac|(talk) 03:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Areas Affected & Deployment #s 

message: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0566.xml AlMac|(talk) 03:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  DHS National Response Plan 

message: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/editorial/editorial_0718.xml AlMac|(talk) 03:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Government Exceptions 

message: The Department of Health and Human Services is offering streamlined access to benefits for Hurricane Katrina victims. As part of this streamlining process, states will be given the flexibility to enroll evacuees without requiring documents such as tax returns or proof of residency. Evacuees who have lost all identification and records should be able to give their address or other simple form of attestation to be eligible. The special evacuee status will apply to the full range of federal benefits administered by the states, including HHS programs that provide services through Medicaid, family assistance through Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), child care support, foster care assistance, mental health services and substance abuse treatment services.
HHS has declared a public health emergency for Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas . This action allows the Department to waive certain Medicare, Medicaid, State Child Health Insurance Program, and HIPAA requirements as well as make grants and enter into contracts more expeditiously during this emergency. 
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has adopted a series of emergency policy changes to accommodate the needs of thousands of displaced Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) beneficiaries who have fled Hurricane Katrina and need urgent medical attention in their new host states.
HHS is providing $15 million in emergency funding to assist Head Start and Early Head Start grantees in providing services to children and families displaced by Hurricane Katrina. These funds will enable Head Start and Early Head Start grantees to provide services to evacuee children and families until October 11, 2005. To receive services, a family must have been forced to leave their home because of Hurricane Katrina. 
HHS announced the availability of a toll-free hotline for people in crisis in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. By dialing 1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255), callers will be connected to a network of local crisis centers across the country that are committed to crisis counseling. Callers to the hotline will receive counseling from trained staff at the closest certified crisis center in the network. HHS also is providing $600,000 in emergency grants to Louisiana, Alabama, Texas and Mississippi to ensure that mental health assessment and crisis counseling are available in areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
The federal government will speed up the award of grants to establish 26 new health center sites in areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina. Approximately $2.3 million in fiscal year 2005 funds to these sites will get health care resources up and running quickly in disaster areas and neighboring states treating evacuees from the storm-ravaged Gulf Coast.
The Office of The Surgeon General and the Office of Public Health Emergency Preparedness to mobilize and identify healthcare professionals and relief personnel to assist in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts. They have registered over 30,000 medical volunteers to assist in recovery measures.
HHS continues to ship pallets of basic first aid materials and supplies to the area, and the Centers for Disease Control and Food and Drug Administration are augmenting state and local public health resources - including chemical and toxicology teams, sanitation and public health teams, epidemiology teams and food safety teams.
==== Health Care Professionals ====
https://volunteer.ccrf.hhs.gov/ AlMac|(talk) 03:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  US [[Department of Health and Human Services]] 

message: https://volunteer.ccrf.hhs.gov/ AlMac|(talk) 03:12, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health Care Professionals 

message: Department of Justice has established the Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force, designed to deter, investigate and prosecute disaster-related federal crimes such as charity fraud and insurance fraud. Justice has also set up a page on how to protect against fraud.
The U.S. Department of Justice is working with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) to set up a national hotline to locate missing hurricane victims at 1-888-544-5475. http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/servlet/PageServlet?LanguageCountry=en_US&PageId=2077
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has obtained the authority to provide states access to the FBI's criminal history database for the purpose of conducting background checks on any volunteer, relief worker, or evacuee associated with Hurricane Katrina, who would have access to children. The FBI is waiving its $24.00 fee that is normally charged for fingerprint-based checks relating to employment, licensing, and suitability. This limited authority expires on November 7, 2005 and requires a state or federal statute authorizing a fingerprint-based criminal history background check for individuals with access to cildren.
==== Protection against Fraud ====
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/SpecialReport-HurricaneKatrina.htm AlMac|(talk) 03:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[US Department of Justice]] 

message: http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/SpecialReport-HurricaneKatrina.htm AlMac|(talk) 03:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection against Fraud 

message: Continuing with what I got in my e-mail sources. AlMac|(talk) 03:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  State Governments 

message: Continuing with what I got in my e-mail sources. AlMac|(talk) 03:02, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-Government Organizations (NGO's) 

message: Continuing with what I got in my e-mail sources. AlMac|(talk) 03:03, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death Toll Update 

message: Now that evacuated kids have got to shelters, many have Internet access, and are being targeted by child predators.  The state of Louisiana conducted a sting operation in chat rooms to catch criminals targeting children who said they were living in emergency shelters without their parents.  These children are especially vulnerable to people claiming to be able to help them locate their parents. 
There are several news stories on this.  
AlMac|(talk) 06:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Children targeted by sexual predators 

message: * As of Sept 18, according to 
** 2,000 kids missing
*** Immediately after the Katrina disaster, the number of missing kids was higher, but something like 700 have been found, so now the total is lower
** 6,000 adults missing
*** In the immediate aftermath more had been reported missing, of which approx 1,000 have been found
** 816 dead bodies found
* As of Sept 20, according to these   articles
** 900 kids have been re-united with their parents
** 2,400 kids are either missing, or have been found unaccompanied by family members and in need of being reunited with them
Some of the missing may have registered with the government, organizations such as the Red Cross, or www.missingkids.org 
AlMac|(talk) 06:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Estimates 

message: I think most reliable statistics might come from the web sites that are working on getting the families back in touch with each other ... how many not yet reconnected.  How many success stories.
* http://americaunited.com/
* Craigs List
* Evacuees to various states sometimes end up on a registree list of who got there
** Arkansas shelter occupants by last name with address where they used to live
** Louisiana has 50 kids without parents and that does not count 500 foster kids from the state whose whereabouts are not yet confirmed, and approx 2,000 reports to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (see link below).  State officials speculate that some kids may have been reported missing by more than one adult.  For example, suppose a family gets split ... mom one place, dad another, other family members scattered to the four winds, not in touch with each other.  The kids are Ok, with one part of the family, but the rest of the family not yet know that for sure.
*** According to the Washington Post , this view is shared by other government agency workers, who have lowered the number of children they looking for, to 2,600 as of Wed Sep 21
** Texas Child Protective Services is caring for 48 unaccompanied children evacuated from the katrina disaster area.  In some cases the parents can't be found, in others the parents are in pretty bad shape.
** Shelters by state and addresses to send packages to 
* http://www.firstgov.gov/ finding loved ones  
* Gigs for Musicians displaced by Katrina 
* Happy stories of children re-united with their families
** CNN 
* Hospital Patients evacuated from New Orleans to where 
* Houston area United Way Resources information 
* Katrina Refugees United 
* http://www.katrinasafe.com/ links  
* http://katrinahelp.info/wiki/main.html 
* Kids helping Kids 
* Missing Person's Board and Missing and Found 
* National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 
** Children found ... Parents Missing 
** Statistics on Missing Kids in America prior to Katrina
* Next of Kin Registry 
* Nursing Home Residents evacuated to where 
* People Search
* Shelter Finder
* Survivors and http://www.survivedkatrina.net/ 
: Lots more links at Disasterhelp.Gov; Disaster Relief ideas evaluated; Bringing order to a Hurricane of Data; Hurricane Housing; to explore to find stuff that belongs in the main article(s) ... I have quite a backlog of possibilities.
AlMac|(talk) 21:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Families locating each other 

message: * Tropical Storm RITA Strike Info
* Weather Radar Map Link 
*  
Airport Closing and Delay Link 
* 
Severe Weather Map Link 
AlMac|(talk) 21:31, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest Emergency Weather Info Links 

message: Given their closeness in time and location, it strikes me that it will soon become difficult to separate the respective economic, political, and social effects of Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. How would my fellow editors feel about moving the articles covering these aspects to Economic effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, Political effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, and Social effects of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season? -- BD2412 talk 00:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps timeline also. AlMac|(talk) 00:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: I've opened a centralized discussion on this question: Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/2005 Atlantic hurricane season effects. I've copied the above comment to that discussion. -- BD2412 talk 00:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I think they should be separated. It would be too complicated to manage otherwise. Things will become more obvious over time, especially if there is large scale duplication. Hopefully the political effects will be the opposite, with Hurricane Rita, as they will do a wonderful job. I can't imagine there will be much looting this time... I do really think that the effects from Rita will be quite different to Katrina. The cavalry is already coming to the rescue. Leistung 18:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger of effects. 

message: I see that the page about Katrina looks more like a pile of news articles. Whoever gets to access this like, in 2015, will not care about what John Doe, supervisor of whatever-the-heck of Department of don't-give-a-crap said about the Hurricane. The page is very extended and I think a lot of it could be cut off. Just my 2 cents eadl|(talk)
*So do it. Deleting things that truly have little merit will be welcomed. Questionable deletions should probably be discussed here first. Good editing is always welcome. Dystopos 19:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  General criticism of the page. 

message: This article will never be neutral. --Cy Ni Po 19:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a valid reason. Give a specific complaint and then put back the notice. --Golbez 19:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV tag 

message: This seems to be unsourced/POV:
As high profile news coverage has reported, the American public in general blames all levels of government in different proportions for failures to perform their responsibilities in hurricane preparedness, Hurricane Katrina planning, and Hurricane Katrina aftermath. That is, despite attempts by "highly placed White House sources" to blame local officials, far more Americans blame the Federal Government, national agencies, and President Bush.
Is there a way to rewrite this either to (1) remove the POV, or (2) source the claim? Jpers36 19:54, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know there were Gallup polls done after the fact that had a rather high number of people blaming the government for slow response, but it was somewhere between 50 and 60 percent, and not "the public in general;" that's just a blanket statement. Mike H (Talking is hot) 03:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The TIME article actually contains a poll (magazine subscription needed, I think) that says that, probably, slightly more people attributed "responsibility for what went wrong with the relief effort" to the state and local officials than the federal government (Bush 61% "some"/"great deal" responsibility, federal agencies 70%, state/local 73%).  It's within the margin of error (3%).  If the views changed over time, perhaps it should be noted in the article. The POV needs to be edited out, though.AySz88^-^ 04:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political effects 

message: The wage effects section about suspending the wage requirements for federal contractors is incoherent.
It starts out talking about federal contractors then goes into something about credit card debt.  I don't know enough about the subject to make an intelligent edit, but someone should clean it up.
Gigs 20:48, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wage Effects Section Incoherent 

message: The timeline is excellent.  One important item missing is something one of the New Orleans parish presidents said on CNN.  He said that four of the five major no-bid contracts to rebuild New Orleans were signed August 28th in Houston.  66.214.94.28 16:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The governor of LA sent letters about the disaster to Texas, so that may be where the regional FEMA office is.  (SEWilco 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rebuilding contracts 

message: Issues of racial bias in media coverage began to surface as Caucasian flood victims were portrayed in photos as "finding" supplies while African-Americans were engaged in "looting" .
Is it really fair to judge the entire media off of TWO pictures that they found on the Internet? I think what they're trying to do is blow a single comment way out of proportion and, even further down in the link that is provided, they provide evidence that seems pretty reasonable to me that it wasn't even racially biased at all, and that it came from two different sources. Just picking out two pictures, from two different sources, and comparing them to each other and saying it's racially biased is a completely unfair assumption that is exaggerated so that they can find every little thing in the media that even remotely resembles racism, and use it to criticize the media at every turn. It clearly states in the article that the white person photographed here found the bread floating in the water, while the black person that is photographed was clearly seen looting from a store. This is clearly signs not of racial bias, but of teh acts of individual people, both black and white. I really think that this is POV and should be removed or changed to say something along the lines of "some people believe that, based on these pictures" at the beginning of the sentence. bob rulz 04:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: "Racial Bias"

message: ~ Billions of dollars are being sent to where Katrina hit, To help out the people down there.
~ Some people think that congress has spent more than enough money on the people down in New Orleans.
~ Hurricanes don't hit the states that aren't on the coast because since the the hurricane comes from the atlantic, it wont hit the states in the middle.
:Hurricane Gloria hit Long Island pretty hard. This year, Hurricane Ophelia brushed the East Coast.  We've just been lucky so far. States in the interior don't get hurricanes, it's true, but you have to have a coast somewhere, and that's where your ports are. Simesa 13:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ~Hurricane Katrina Info.~ 

message: 66.61.68.137 changed the highest sustained winds from 185 mph to 175 mph - does anyone have an authoritative source for 185 mph?  Otherwise we should leave it at 175.  See "185 mph" above. Simesa 14:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Highest Winds