Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 8

Possible error or ambiguity

This is from the Dean article: It was the most intense tropical cyclone in the Atlantic basin since Hurricane Wilma of 2005, is the ninth most intense Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and is the third most intense Atlantic hurricane ever at landfall. Now from the Katrina article: It was the sixth-strongest Atlantic hurricane ever recorded and the third-strongest hurricane on record that made landfall in the United States. If there is a difference between strength and intensity this would be a good place for a discussion.

I don't get what your saying. Dean was the 9th most intense storm and third most intense to make landfall. Katrina was the sixth strongest storm and third strongest to make landfall in the U.S. If you are asking about the landfall, Dean was third strongest to make landfall in the entire Atlantic basin, while Katrina was third strongest at landfall in the U.S. ---CWY2190^T^C 07:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So, are strength and intensity the same thing, or two different things? -- (some other guy) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.12.200 (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks

Does anyone mind if I copy and paste certain parts of the Katrina related articles onto wikibooks. It would only be temporary though, and I'd start rewriting stuff some, or enough. Anyone can help if they want to. Jeez, all the Katrina articles together is practically long enough for a decent sized book. I wonder... íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to transwiki it, though. However, does Wikibooks want it? Tito xd^(?!?) 03:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm part of wikibooks, and I think it should be on there. So, doesn't that mean they (we) want it? Pluz, I think it should definetly be needed, as it's very important. íslenskur fel lib ylur #12 _(samtal) 01:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a separate site Katrina Wiki is in order, being such a dramatic topic? (Although I have no idea how to do such) CrazyC83 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://hurricanes.wikia.com never got off the ground, so it isn't that good of an idea. Again, I don't object to it being hosted there if Wikibooks wants it, but I still recommend a transwiki, for WP:GFDL purposes, since this page has about 13,000 revisions. Tito xd^(?!?) 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<sob, scream, wail> "Does anyone mind if I copy and paste..." - the GFDL is dead, dead I tell you! Transwiki works now. Please, anyone working at wikibooks who is reading this, please don't ever copy and paste. <deep calming breath> Sorry for screaming and wailing there, but there is a reason for all this page history, you know! :-) Carcharoth 04:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Import is a beautiful thing... Tito xd^(?!?) 04:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll inconsistencies

Hey, like to note that there are two separate death toll numbers presented in the article; 1836 and 1833. Perhaps choosing the mor likely and including a note on the unknown qualities would be a good idea.

We have the number that includes inland deaths (verified by the HPC but not the NHC), so they are conflicting. 1,836+ is the best number IMO, with a plus sign as it is possible that there were more that they still haven't confirmed links to Katrina. CrazyC83 02:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like "+" or "≥" in the infobox, personally I prefer words ("at least"). – Ch acor 03:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why NHC does not include the inland deaths. I could always ask them. Thegreatdr 05:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

THe death toll is not and never wil be accurate. A lot of people were simply washed out to sea and no bodies will ever be found.nut-meg 17:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the death-toll is a lie, take it from some one who was involved in the recovery effort in Mississippi, our numbers where 1200 dead in our state alone, when we turned the numbers over to the government that changed them so it would not look as bad.

You may have been involved, but we cannot accept WP:OR; it has to be published in a reputable source like a newspaper first. --Golbez 09:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be one of those storms that a (gruesome) count of gravestones in a published document would ultimately resolve. As bad as it sounds, it is how the Audrey number became fixed on a higher number (due to a 1997 book). It's also how the estimate for the October 1893 hurricane dead has been narrowed down (due to 1984 research which was published). I'm not sure NHC is planning another update to the Katrina report to finalize a death toll. Thegreatdr 13:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Outstanding article, congratulations on the featured article. StudyAndBeWise 06:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it seems like almost every category 5 hurricane articles are all featured. Take a look for your self. XU-engineer 20:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updating and expanding reconstruction bits

I mentioned some things on the talk page a while ago (October 2006) and got no response. Have a look at the last three sections of the latest archive (Archive 7) for talk page stuff that never got dealt with. Does anyone here want to take on brushing up a featured article so that it maintains its high standards, instead of degrading over time and looking like it was written about intensively at the time but not maintained since? Said in the nicest possible way, of course. :-) Carcharoth 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the above is a copy of what I wrote elsewhere. Some of it has already been dealt with (thanks Titoxd!). Can anyone copy out the link from the archive and talk here about what else can be done? Carcharoth 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is that link and for completeness sake, the whole comment:

"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)"[reply]

Any sensible way to add something about this? Carcharoth 04:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

300 pages... :| Was a summary report of the conference offered anywhere? Titoxd^(?!?) 04:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should help: (place it on the main page if needed)

 XU-engineer 21:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Question

I Would like to ask about the music video "The Saints Are Coming" Of green day and U2. And wanted to know if the army did do such a mass operation of rescuing trapped people or is it just a computer made operation in the music video? thanks.

Alon

Not the Army, but the Coast Guard did something similar (but nowhere even close to what was shown in that video). That said, some people have complained that it was too little, too late, or too disorganized. See Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying media coverage section

While I admire Geraldo Rivera, Shepard Smith and their efforts to be immersed in the coverage they're involved in, I think this section completely ignores the point that NBC News' Brian Williams was not only in the Superdome when Hurricane Katrina came on shore, but he was the only major news anchor that stayed on the scene for several days. NBC News was the first major news agency to announce that they were opening a bureau in New Orleans to cover the aftermath. It should be noted that it was a major thing for Williams to be in New Orleans for the storm and its aftermath, since he was the only one of the Big Three (NBC, CBS, ABC) to be on scene. The cable news networks involved in coverage isn't unexpected since they provide wall-to-wall coverage on everything, no matter how newsworthy or not (and yes, that's subjective). Plus, Brian Williams won several journalism awards for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. Just FYI. I am happy to add and modify the article with information and details, but I don't want to step on any toes before I modify a featured article. In addition to modifying the small summary that is on this page, I think I will try to take a more in-depth look at the coverage in the wake of Katrina and modifying that article. Let's chat@!# :-P --Bsheppard 05:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Modifying media coverage section

I think we should edit this section and add something of the important "Idol Gives Back" charity program.

External Link - Survival of New Orleans Blog

During the katrina crisis, this blog was a source of hour-by-hour news updates from within New Orleans. The Chief Security Officer of directnic.com (domain name registrar) was holed up in a building protecting directnic.com servers. He ventured out many times for fuel or other supplies, and gave his firsthand accounts of what he saw until he was replaced by reinforcements on September 17th.

This is a blog, but I feel it's removal was done rather hastily, without considering its value. Many of the links from that day, such as the Katrina Intel Wiki, have gone dead in the years since. This reinforces the notion of the value of a firsthand account.

http://interdictor.livejournal.com/19282.html was the link posted. Using the "next" button you can see a progression as the situation worsens.

I realize there is the potential to see this as an attempted advertisement, however, companies are composed of people, and this company was one of many that had people there during the crisis. The unique ability to communicate via internet during the crisis came about BECAUSE of the internet-related nature of the company.

Perhaps this would be a more relevant entry point? http://interdictor.livejournal.com/2005/08/28/ or possibly http://www.mgno.com/2005/08/28/ 71.116.132.93 17:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider my removal as being "hasty". From the Links normally to be avoided section on the Wikipedia:External links page:

Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.

I won't argue if a consensus is reached that says it belongs on the page, but I believe discussion should be held here before it's added. --Onorem 18:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

current links

Those are external links in the current article, and they appear to be blog links. I could not verify that http://www.nola.com/ is even serving web pages, so I could be wrong about those links. Perhaps their server crashed or something.

I would argue that the anti-blog bias is antithetical to the idea of firsthand narratives. Perhaps the whole section should be removed? 71.116.132.93 07:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had not noticed those links, and would have to say that it's my opinion that they should also be removed. I also don't know when they were added and whether or not any discussion was had regarding them. I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make regarding anti-blog bias. The idea of firsthand narratives is not an idea that is strived for on Wikipedia. No original research. Reliable sources. --Onorem 14:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are happy to keep new links from being added, but reluctant to remove links that obviously violate the same Wikipedia standards? If I add the link again will you remove it again? 71.103.98.40 20:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctant to remove links that may have been included after some previous consensus had been reached. I had hoped that some sort of conversation from editors that had been working on this article would take place here. Since nobody else seems to want to express an opinion and I was unable to find any conversation about them in the archive pages, I'll remove the other blog links now. I removed your link when I was patrolling recent changes. I don't make a habit of inspecting every article I make a reversion on. --Onorem 20:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the blogs are a source of information, I don't feel the need of having them here. First of all, for how enormous the storm's effects were, I'm sure any useful info in the blogs would be in more official links. Second of all, blogs represent very small points of view at only one time period. Thirdly, how do you know how accurate they are? It is human nature to exaggerate things, after all. I agree that the blogs should be removed, and I wouldn't oppose removing the links on "Survivor and eyewitness accounts". This is an encyclopedia. While blogs and eyewitness accounts can be useful, their lack of credibility and relevance for the encyclopedia article cause me to lean toward removing them. If people want info on the blogs of Katrina, they could google it (Searching Hurricane Katrina Blog brings up nearly 3 million hits). It would be a different story if there was an article on, say, Personal accounts of Hurricane Katrina. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the action and explanation. 71.103.144.186 19:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. I read that blog during the hurricane. It should be linked from the article. There should definitely be something in the article on blogs from people in the areas writing during and after the hurricane. Carcharoth 15:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Hurricane Katrina at Featured list candidates

I nominated Timeline of Hurricane Katrina for featured list status, if anyone is interested in voting, here is a direct link to the nomination. PhoenixTwo 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change question

Should this article acknowledge the linkage between Climate Change and the strength of Katrina which was postulated in various media at the time? e.g. Time. Note the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report recently indicated that an increase in hurricane intensity is "more likely than not" as a result of Climate Change. Ephebi 18:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because regardless of the media reports, it is impossible to determine the effect climatic changes have on a single storm. Again, this info should be at Global warming and Tropical cyclone. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps my earlier request was poorly worded. I'm not suggesting that this article itself should conclude anything. (I don't know any climatologists who say one specific weather event is proof of anything.) But as the question was being asked at the time it would be misleading to not acknowledge the backdrop, or the existence of the question. Ephebi 23:56, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Titoxd, the question seems more relevant in the more general articles, perhaps in 2005 hurricane season? It doesn't make much sense to bring it up in an article for a single storm- since the question was whether the more active 2005 season as a whole was caused by climate change.138.237.165.140 16:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there's no way to know that global warming influenced a particular season either. There's things such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation that make these things not-so clear; see Tropical cyclone#Global warming. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actuaries would diagree with you there - in addition to the larger insurance payouts, over the last few years they have reduced the size of the 'safe harbour' regions of the Caribbean and this will continue as storm intensity and reach expands. Ephebi 08:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The current debate, scientifically, is not whether there is global warming, and whether it makes hurricanes stronger; it is if whether it makes them stronger to a measurable amount, or whether the increase is within the forecasting margin of error. I won't speculate why the actuaries raise rates. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 'current debate' is irrelevant to the original point. Nonetheless, the IPCC accounts for the oscillators, and much more besides, & in its 4th report concluded that there are probabalistically-significant effects. Regarding regions rendered uninsurable through climate change, there's already plenty of evidence that this is happening [1] Ephebi 14:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some reference should be included because the link between climate change and Katrina comes up often in the public dialog, reguardless of whether on not one believes there is such a link or not. Celand Mark 06:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same question can be drawn to every single hurricane in recent years. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still not up-to-date

How can this be a featured article when it goes silent after about September 2005? Anyone reading the article would get the impression that New Orleans either was completely fixed, or was abandonded after September 2005. Which is it? What has happened in the year and half since? Hurricane Katrina disaster relief has {{Update}} on it - I don't want to have to put that on this article! Carcharoth 15:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Hurricane_Katrina#Economic_effects does mention stuff from 2006, so that is a start. But a real effort needs to be made to bring the article up to date for 2007 as new figures come out. They won't be reported widely in the news, so it will require lots of work... Carcharoth 15:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in many ways, NOLA is borked, so not much has changed... :) That said, the article needs some updating, but I only have so much time to spend here, and most of my time is currently being used to improve Tropical cyclone. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it was abandoned after that, as it still has much to clear up. Why does it say in the article that it changed from a cat. one to a three before it made landfall, when above the picture it says "Category 5"? Karonaway 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ü Good report —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.183.249 (talk) 01:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Theories

Is there actually any citation (not even necessarily a common one) for the "most commonly cited culprit in these conspiracy theories is the UNESCO Biosphere program, in an attempt to "re-wild" the region." ? If this novel theory cannot be substantiated, should that sentence be there?

John Barry's Rising Tide has a comprehensive description of the intentional destruction of levees south of New Orleans (and south of the Lower 9th Ward, too) in response to the 1927 Mississippi River flood. The origin of "blow the levees" theories associated with subsequent hurricanes such as Betsy and Katrina can be traced back to the events of 1927 and the widespread press coverage, including photographs of the explosions. Repeated application of dynamite over a period of days was needed to successfully breach that levee.

One explanation of explosions heard by residents on the morning of Hurricane Katrina is that they heard the sudden and catastrophic failure of metal sheet piles, concrete wall sections, and other structural elements of the floodwalls as they yielded to the immense hydraulic pressure from the storm surge combined with erosion from over-topping. Such a release of potential energy over a short time period would be audible as a loud explosion. This theory is favored by engineers and technologists but rarely appears in conspiracy discussions.

NWS reports

Miami, FL report
Key West, FL tornado report
Melbourne, FL report
New Orleans, LA report
Mobile, AL report
Birmingham, AL report —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hurricanehink (talk • contribs) 15:32, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Huntsville, AL report
Jackson, MS report
Little Rock, AK report
Nashville, TN report
Peachtree City, GA report
State College, PA report

These should be included in the article, if not done so already. Hurricanehink (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extent of Flooding

It would be great if we had a square-mileage of the total area flooded. I think it would be a very powerful addition to the impact section. -- §Hurricane E RIC § archive 00:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea where i could find that? Juliancolton 02:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do no that 80% of New Orleans was flooded. I don't know if that could fit in the article. -- Juliancolton (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HoppinHill

Dear Rattleman et al, What does "rv per warnings" mean? HoppinHill 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chacor et al, I am attempting to add important information - complete with resources - to the introduction of Hurricane Katrina and you are reverting my additions. I want to add that "The design and construction of New Orleans' flood protection is, by congressional mandate, the sole responsibility of the US Army Corps of Engineers in the Flood Protection Act of 1965." You have reverted my edits three times in a 24 hour period which is a violation. My rationale: The flooding of New Orleans (unlike Mississippi) is considered by experts the worst engineering disaster in US history, not a natural disaster. Link to experts opinion: http://www.levees.org/research/sources/Newhouse%20A1.htm Furthermore, if the flooding of New Orleans is a manmade disaster, then there is a duty to educate the public on whose responsibility the flood protection belongs to. Trying nicely to resolve this. HoppinHill 17:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, learn the policy correctly. Three reverts isn't a violation. Four reverts, and using an IP at the same time so as not to have your account associated with the reverts (it's obvious the IP is you, you yourself have admitted that by saying I am reverting "your" additions) is a violation of TWO Wikipedia policies. You've been blocked for exactly this before in May. Your changes violate WP:NPOV. You have been warned multiple times. Only you are harping on the fact that it is federally-built. That is a POV and not welcome in the article. – Chacor 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact on New Orleans: Roads in and out of New Orleans

EricKodjo 21:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I edited the text under New Orleans changing it in important ways. Contrary to what was written, very few roads were impassable after the flood (I drove on some of them). Further, while the Crescent City connection suffered virtually no material damage, it was blocked by police on the west bank, a fact that has lead to civil right based legal actions. This material should be added (& could readily be sourced from the Times-Picayune). If someone doesn't get to it first I will eventually do this.[reply]

EricKodjo 22:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC) I'm new at this, so I am loathe to go back and edit something I just changed, but it is wrong on two counts to say, "The only routes out of the city were the westbound Crescent City Connection and the Huey P. Long Bridge". West bound I-10 (which is different to the Crescent City Connection) remained open (though not in the actual strorm) as did Airline Highway & I suspect other west (& probably also east) bound routes out of town. Moreover, the Crescent City Connection was closed in the same way the Causeway was (as explained on the wikipedia under "Crescent City Connection"), so it is misleading to say it was open and to follow up by saying the Causeway was only open to emergency traffic.[reply]

It is refactor time

This article is 105 KB in size. That suggests that it is time to factor out a section or sections and get the size back down to something like 50-60 KB. Now....where to slice. Oh! I forgot my manners: any objections?--SallyForth123 01:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are objections. The article is not 105 KB of prose. A whole bunch of that number is HTML/Cite.php referencing, which is not counted under Article size considerations. Also, this article has a ton of subarticles, primarily the ones linked to from {{Katrina}}. This was mentioned in the FAC a while ago, and it wasn't a problem. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. As an experiment, I took out all of the pictures and most of the refs, and the size decreased to about 65 kb, a reasonable size for an article of this magnitude and near your suggested range of 50-60 kb. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of View:

"Conversely, the National Hurricane Center and National Weather Service were widely commended for accurate forecasts and abundant lead time." there is no source cited for this. It is POV and should be cited or removed.

Rocketsquirrel 22:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Doug McDaniel[reply]

Referenced. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

plaquemines parish

ok im just saying one thing that article says the most property damge was in new orleans. that is not true, in lower plaquemines parish is where the worst damage was!! that's all i ahev to say i am tired of us not getting the credit we deserve. ==

Credit? I'm not sure that 'credit' is the right word. As for the article, I think that because the scope of the damage in New Orleans was much broader it is widely considered to have been the worst. Plasticup ^T/C 17:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you havet been on the mississippi gulf coast have you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.222.87.65 (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency vs. Disaster declarations

The emergency declaration section of the article should mention the difference between disaster and emergency declarations under the Stafford Act.

When Rep. Buyer questioned Michael Brown about why Bush's declaration did not cover the southern parishes in LA, he was referring to the absence of a Presidential disaster declaration. Governor Blanco released a letter requesting an emergency declaration in response. Under the Stafford Act of 1988, disaster and emergency declarations are completely different things, and each provide for different types of assistance to be provided by the federal government.

In a "disaster" the federal government has more power to control resources and dictate services to citizens. Florida, Alabama, and Mississippi all requested disaster declarations, but Louisiana did not.

68.186.57.120 20:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in percentage of city flooded

There is an error on the amount of the city that flooded. The article states eight percent when the real number is eighty percent. Your source #27 confirms this number. Thanks!Shoe2x 06:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... where does it say eight? I can't find it... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality re: nat'l weather service

Am I the only one who thinks the wording of this article slants a bit much toward glowing praise of the National Weather Service and Hurricane Center? For example, the passage about how they got warning to southern Florida, and "correctly predicted" that it would acheive hurricane strength by landfall there, and got advisories out "just short" of the target lead time? Especially since I personally wouldn't call 31 and 19 "just short" of 36 and 24. It sort of reads like these parts were written by a self-satisfied employee of the Weather Service. I guess it's not a huge problem but I noticed it right away.-NoMoreWorkPlease 14:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other countries

I'm not from North or "Central" America, so I wouldn't know. But what was the extent of the damage Katrina did to other countries in the region? I know the major story is in the US, but I presume Mexico and some island states were affected in some way. The article makes no mention of it. Or am I wrong? Artiste-extraordinaire 15:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It affected only the US and the Bahamas (plus some strong surf in Cuba). As you can see by the storm track, it didn't approach any other countries. The effects in the Bahamas were minimal because the storm was still weak the time, so the US is really the only story. —Verrai 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gas Price Pic Photoshopped

While the gas hikes after Katrina were ludicrous, the $15/gallon picture is obviously photoshopped —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.160.96 (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fake words

You don’t know how lucky you are that that word was already in the inventory; Forgive us “commoners”, but a lot of us don’t know some of the fancier (wholly fictitious) words you people (sort of) can make up at times. Try to avoid fake words, and use real ones only. Andy REDDSON —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.224 (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate on which "fake" words they made up?129.7.254.33 (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Point Of View Issue

The article routinely blasts the US Government’s actions, yet pays no attention to when they got it right (the Coast Guard was singled out for special praise by many). In fact, it doesn’t appear to mention ANY praiseworthy actions (Salvation Army who tended for many survivors, Coast Guard who rescued most of those who did get rescued [despite FEMA’s interference], NOAA who did attempt to raise alarm but was ignored [by just about everyone]). It also ignored non-US Federal response criticism (just as Red Cross wasting supplies, and in some case stealing them- indeed, they’re identified for praise). Also Andy REDDSON. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.120.224 (talk) 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More updates needed

Titus helped save americas life. is now 2.5 years after the hurricane, and still the regular updates are not happening (I asked about this before). If this article is to remain featured (and I ask this out of genuine uncertainty as to how WP:FAR handles this sort of thing), should it be including things like this and this? Some quotes:

"A city still suffering from the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina nearly 2½ years ago, New Orleans is home to one of the best teams this season, the Hornets. Unfortunately, a population that, at slightly more than 300,000 is only just over half its pre-Katrina level, is struggling to support the Hornets..."
"The recovery is still a work in progress. The breaching of over 50 badly-designed levees in and around the city in August 2005 led to 80 per cent of it being flooded, the deaths of at least 1,836 people around the region and $81.2 billion (about £40.6 billion) of damage. In total, more than 90,000 square miles – roughly the size of the UK – were declared federal disaster areas by a Government widely criticised for its handling of Katrina."
""Every team that has come through here has done some sort of event,” Chris Wallace, an NBA spokesman, said. “Whether it’s bringing kids to the game from devastated school districts, going out to help build a playground or assisting with habitat builds. The feedback we are getting is that the city still needs a great deal of help.”"
"In the worst-hit areas – such as the notorious Ninth Ward – the scene that greeted the millionaire basketball players was one of near postapocalyptic devastation; staircases stand twisted in isolation, the only reminder that they were once connected to dwellings."

At the very least, there should be an article covering the longer-term aftermath and recovery process, not just the immediate rescue and funding and emergency efforts.

"Katrina Ballads" and other artistic responses?

I want to add to the article a brief mention of a new cantata, "Katrina Ballads," which sets a bunch of texts transcribed from the news to music. I don't know where to put it -- should there be a section on artistic response to the disaster? (I'm not sure it's appropriate to put under the sections on criticism of government response or media involvement.) Anybody have an opinion on this sort of thing?

I should add, this isn't a plug for the composer or anything -- I just think the piece would make a really interesting addition to the article. (It's written by Ted Hearne, who I'm in composition class with. If you get a chance, check out the piece: it's really good.) -- The Realms of Gold (talk) 05:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a great idea. A new section on artistic response sounds appropriate. Alexweiser (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celine Dion

There is a totally outrageous thing about Celine Dion posted at the bottom of the "International Response" section. While the poster may feel that Dion's reaction to Katrina is worthy of a longer note than pretty much any other subtopic in the article, someone really needs to get rid of it. Immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.30.41 (talk) 22:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it takes up half the section, is poorly written, and is unsourced and unneeded. Deleted it. --Golbez (talk) 22:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed. Sounded like some promotion or something. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needs NPOV Edit Re: Contractors

The claims made regarding price gouging by contractors are NPOV and, as currently written, are not merely "citation needed" but not possible to verify for inclusion in Wikipedia. It discusses the experiences of contractors, immigrant laborers, and homeowners as monolithic -- this is obviously not the case. If this section stays, it needs both a citation to a particularized incident or complaint and some serious NPOV work. 211.125.163.66 (talk) 10:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and deleted it. Saganaga (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Info on Pictures

The caption that accompainies picture that shows US President George W Bush and the cabinet at the time needs to be updated to show that Donald Rumsfeld is the Former Secretary of Defense instead of the Current Secretary of Defense.

Jayzwuzhere (talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)jayzwuzhere[reply]

Is Katrina "Costliest" or "Third-Costliest" in U.S. History?

The current article states that both are true. It states in the lead that "Hurricane Katrina was the costliest and one of the five deadliest hurricanes in the history of the United States" and in the fourth graf Katrina is described as "the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history." Yet lower on THE SAME PAGE is a chart showing two other U.S. hurricanes with larger damages figures. Obviously there is room for disagreement about whether the complicated analytics used in comparing costs are appropriate. But if the article is going to say Katrina is the costliest, and then say on the same page that it is the third-costliest, surely the discrepancy should be acknowledged in some fashion?

Kirkpete (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina is the costliest storm. The template had been changed to report "wealth normalized" costs as opposed to inflation adjusted numbers. Normalization gives an estimate of what the storm would do if it hit today. Inflation adjusted figures tell you what the storm did do - with the cost then adjusted to present day dollars. For example, the Miami hurricane did not do anything like $125 billion (2008) damage, the true figure is about $1 billion. The fact that it would have caused $125 billion if it hit today, does not mean the real storm did that much damage.--CycloneAlley (talk) 23:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category 3

The sources I have seen say Katrina is a Category 3 hurricane, not a Category 5. Check http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0778120.html or http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/usdeadly.asp, for example. Also, I don't see any link to a source in this article claiming it was a Category 5. I have checked many sources but could not find one claiming it was a category 5 hurricane, only that it was initially considered a Category 4 hurricane and eventually considered a strong Category 3 hurricane. Someone should verify this. --216.165.62.185 (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina had peak winds of 175 mph, making it a Category 5. It had weakened to Category 3 strength when it hit LA - this is the reason for your confusion. The NHC report states both those facts in the introduction.--CycloneAlley (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA? Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans. Kylee20051 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LA is the abbreviation for Louisiana. 128.61.62.93 (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wetlands

Hi. I have added this into the article, as it is nessecary. Prior to the storm, subsidence caused the Louisiana coastline to retreat, and this allowed Katrina to be stronger than it otherwise would have been. I only added two sentences, and with a source. If this is not the place to add it, please tell me where to do so. Also, this topic was covered in the documentary Hurricane on the Bayou. I have not mentioned this, but the reference also notes that the leveeing of the Mississippi River caused the subsidence to continue unabated. Also, should we mention the Coast 2050 plan in the article, and that Bush's speech did not mention wetlands? If you don't think the source's title doesn't sound NPOV, it might be because the book mentions global warming and its future effects, but we don't need to mention any of that in the article. Please discuss on this matter, as the effects on the wetlands prior to Katrina is an important topic in this subject, or has it already been mentioned somewhere? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane preparedness for New Orleans#Louisiana's sinking coast. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Oil spills due to Katrina?

Was any oil spilt out at sea or on the shoreline because of the hurricane? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.150.12.32 (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually looking at this yesterday, and no, there were no spills.[2] Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I remember, the offshore oil rigs faired the storm quite well.--Posie (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia "Murphy Oil Spill (Chalumette, Louisianna)" there were 44 oil spills. The only oil spilled that I was at, was where the a tank partially full of oil ruptured, coating an area with a coat of oil. Murphy Oil U.S.A., Inc. clean-up crews were busy cleaning up even the smallest remnants (washing down the houses and fences, then removing the dirt from the yards and replacing the dirt with trucked in dirt) when I arrived. One resident whose home backed up to the tank farm informed me that he had to swim through the oil to get to safety. He informed me that Murphy Oil was going to give him $75,000 for his damages, but that they had yet to come by. I inspected the home on his invitation and found no trace of oil. When I asked if the oil caused pain in his mouth and nose as he swam, he said that it did not; thus throwing into doubt his story, as diesel burns vey badly when it gets onto your face.Johnherrick (talk) 00:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preparations - Federal Government

I added a quote from the Special Report of the Committee on Homeland Security and Govtal Affairs, but I don't understand the numbering of the referencing. Could someone fix this and explain it to me? Thanks for any help. Nicholas007 (talk) 00:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an error in this article and can't change it.

Under the media section it talks about the AM radio station 870 and said that it is a Clear channel station. It is an Entercom Communication station. You will find that informaiton at www.entercom.com. Please change this if you can. Thanks--Swoodward73 (talk) 14:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~A H 1^(TCU) 15:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undone. Ownership is not relevant. Follow the link and read about why clear channel was used in phrasing next to "high power designation". -- SEWilco (talk) 17:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina Animation

Hurricane Katrina arrives on the North American continent.

Do you think this could be used in the article? I personally think that it is highly informative. NauticaShad es 01:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like an improvement over the existing radar animation. -- SEWilco (talk) 01:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice animation, but isn't needed, per above. You might consider adding it to Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added to Met. history. --Lord ₪Sunday 15:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms Government Response

Shouldn't there be some mention of the state's unconstitutional seizure of legally owned firearms in that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 02:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the section on criticism of local government, the article states that media etc. "of all stripes" criticized the local government response. This probably needs a citation. I think the criticism of the local government was largely from conservative pundits. Also, simply citing the government's report is not enough -- specific page numbers are needed. Marky1b (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1,836 not supported by sources

Neither of the cited sources directly support the 1,836 figure. It needs to be clearly stated how this adds up, or better there needs to be a link to a reliable source that publishes that number. Superm401 - Talk 12:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I came here to post this. Both the 1,836 fatalities and the 705 missing aren't supported by the sources listed. The source for missing people implies 135 people still missing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChesterCheeto (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty darn close. NHC's Katrina report gives 1,833 and the distribution is almost identical to that in the article (1,577 Louisiana, 238 Mississippi, 14 Florida, 2 Georgia, and 2 Alabama), about 1,500 were directly related to the storm, with the rest being indirect deaths. Where those extra three came from, I don't know. What I'm more interested in is the 705 missing figure. If that is true, then Katrina leapfrogs eight storms on the all time list (after a certain period of time, we assume the missing will remain missing). The NHC report doesn't specify but mentions that "several hundred" are missing as of one year after the storm. That sounds like more than 135. Surely with an internationally known and exhaustively covered event, we can find an accurate missing figure. -- Hurricane ERIC - Class of '08: XVII Maius MMVIII 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked

So did the page get hacked this morning or something? All that stuff about how "Zodiac" has take all our souls and the celtic cross and such.69.3.223.165 (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but some articles do get vandalised from time to time, but I don't see anything in the edit history that suggests that this happened this morning. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably vandalism in one of the templates. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gustav Updates?

Should this article some how reference Hurricane_Gustav in regards to things that might of been fixed due to Katrina failures and also reference things that still appear to be unresolved (time will tell on that one in the next day or two)? Theosis4u (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove vandalism by SteveSims

Could SteveSims please explain the relevance of a photo of Bush at McCain's birthday party? It has absolutely nothing to do with the article. MrDestructo (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's vandalism, and while I don't see the point of it either, it's probably relevant due to the events described here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 21:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no more relevant than someone placing an image of Obama shaking hands with William Ayers on the 2008 US Election page. McCain has nothing to do with Hurricane Katrina and its only logical purpose is political. This isn't an attempt to defend either candidate, it's to maintain a level of impartiality. MrDestructo (talk) 00:11, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think whoever is readding this image to article is simply doing so to try to undermine McCain. I don't believe Wikipedia should look like it's orchestrating a smear campaign against the republicans. It dosen't make the article look very professional at all. --Kuzwa (talk) 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More accurate citations needed

There are several points within this article where large (several hundred page) reports are cited without giving specific page numbers or ranges. In my opinion that is not an accurate enough citation to be verified. In particular "A Failure of Initiative" and "The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina" are cited several times in this way. The points made with these citations are contentious (i.e., local vs. government responsibility for botched response to the disaster) and therefore I believe more precise citations are needed.

In the absence of a more accurate citation I would move to either delete or "un-cite" the passages in question.

Marky1b (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual mistake which has been in this article for two years

I edited this sentence:

Among recorded Atlantic hurricanes, it was the sixth strongest overall and the third strongest to make a landfall in the United States.

I removed, "The third strongest to make a landfall in the United States" a cursory look at the 5 hurricanes stronger than Katrina shows that all 5 reached the US.

Please rewrite so it is less confusing and explain with a source if this sentence portion is returned. Calendar (talk) 07:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tracked down who wrote this, 04:25, 9 June 2006 I have asked him/her to provide a source. What is so scary is that no one caught this mistake (if it is in fact a mistake) for over two years. So much for Wikipedia's reliability. Calendar (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's no mistake, all it means is Katrina made landfall as the third strongest hurricane to do so. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct. Interesting:

The 920 mb pressure is also the third lowest at U. S. landfall on record, behind only Hurricane Camille in 1969 (909 mb) and the 1935 Labor Day hurricane that struck the Florida Keys (892 mb).

If the assumption is correct that most of the Katrina-related fatalities were caused directly by the storm, then Katrina ranks as the third deadliest hurricane in the United States since 1900, and the deadliest in 77 years. However, two hurricanes in 1893 might each have been directly responsible for more fatalities in the United States than Katrina. One of these struck the southeastern Louisiana barrier island of Cheniere Caminanda and killed about 2000 people, while another struck Georgia and South Carolina and claimed somewhere between 1000 and 2000 lives. As a result, Katrina ranks fourth or fifth on the list of the deadliest hurricanes on record in the United States.Calendar (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== That is very cool! == Titus saved an american

citizen from dieing in a katrina.

stormCan you display a talk thing on mine? Catwoman7770  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catwoman7770 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC) 
     You already have one on your talk page but it is probably unedited. You need                to be more active to make it so people write on your talk page. Kylee20051 (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2nd graf of lead

"The levee failures prompted corps commander Lt. Gen. Carl Strock to commission an investigation of the New Orleans flood protection system.[5] In New Orleans, responsibility for the system's design and construction belongs by the federal statute to the Corps of Engineers." These two sentences seem to be almost random and have nothing to do with introducing the article. In particlar, we don't need to know who commissioned the investigation, nor do we need to know who is responsible by statute. These do not belong in a featured article's lead. --Golbez (talk) 05:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most destructive U.S. Hurricanes?

Shouldn't Katrina's damage be 89.6 billion on this list? The list says cost (2008 USD), and 81.2 billion was at the time in 2005. Why hasn't this been put up to 89.6 billion? 76.236.187.191 (talk) 21:31, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Costliest U.S. Atlantic hurricanes^[1]^[2]^{[nb 1]}
Rank	Hurricane	Season	Damage
1	3 Katrina	2005	$125 billion
1	4 Harvey	2017	$125 billion
3	4 Ian	2022	$113 billion
4	4 Maria	2017	$90 billion
5	4 Ida	2021	$75 billion
6	ET Sandy	2012	$65 billion
7	4 Irma	2017	$52.1 billion
8	2 Ike	2008	$30 billion
9	5 Andrew	1992	$27 billion
10	5 Michael	2018	$25 billion

Yello, is anyone there about this? Shouldn't Katrina's damage here be 89.6 billion? 81.2 billion was uninflated; 89.6 billion is inflated for 2008 USD, which is what this list goes by. Does anyone agree about this? Well? Should it be 89.6 billion for 2008 USD? Well? Does anyone out there agree with me? 76.235.205.44 (talk) 14:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to agree. Any others? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I changed it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Charities

{{editsemiprotected}} PLEASE CHANGE

===Non-governmental organization response===
The [[American Red Cross]], [[Southern Baptist Convention]], [[Salvation Army]], [[Oxfam]], [[Common Ground Collective]], [[Emergency Communities]], [[Habitat for Humanity]], Service International, "A River of Hope" and many other charitable organizations provided help to the victims of the storm.

TO

===Non-governmental organization response===
The [[American Red Cross]], [[Catholic Charities]], [[Southern Baptist Convention]], [[Salvation Army]], [[Oxfam]], [[Common Ground Collective]], [[Emergency Communities]], [[Habitat for Humanity]], Service International, "A River of Hope" and many other charitable organizations provided help to the victims of the storm.

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 13:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HURRICANE KATRINA LAWSUITS

PLEASE CREATE A Katrina pending lawsuits page on wiki! I.e. llinks to news articles, links to legal studies of these lawsuits, and links to the courts, where the cases are pending! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.236.252.234 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to elaborate on just what you're yelling about. --Golbez (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but wikipedia is an "encyclopedia", not a blog, or a forum, or an advertisement site for lawyers. Gtadoc (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental lawsuit

Please consider using this link:

Case Weighing Canal’s Role in Damage by Hurricane Katrina - NYTimes.com. -- Wavelength (talk) 00:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gouvernment response - half-staffed US flags

According to the link [3] provided in the article the proclamation to lower the flags to halfstaff is dated September 4, 2005 - how come the article says September 2, 2005?85.177.105.3 (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then President?

Why is it that every time President Bush is mentioned, he is referred to as "then-President". Presidents retain their titles after leaving office and should be referred to as such. For example, look at the Cuban Missile Crisis page - nobody saw fit to refer to Kennedy as the "then-President". It looks sloppy and should be fixed. Gh0ti-2 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much info crammed in the intro

If you look at comparable disasters or disasters of a similar (or greater) scale (such as the 1906 San Fran earthquake, or the 1991 Bangladesh Cyclone), you'll see that they're pretty good about not stuffing the intro with where the disaster ranks among various criteria, which I think is a problem here. Most of the scientific data and finer points of the levee failures can and probably is explained elsewhere in the article. We don't need two zeppelin-sized paragraphs up there at the top. 98.239.166.251 (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure where to say this, well, i guess i agree with the above poster about keeping the intro succinct but... I think the Intro is actually lacking, it is only the 5th paragraph that mentions Mississippi, and doesn't even mention damage in MS. The Hurricane directly caused the most damage (wind+storm surge) on the Mississippi gulf coast (whole towns taken out to sea...). New Orleans was damaged by flooding from the failure of levees, a slightly indirect consequence of the hurricane. Both of these facts need to be stated clearly in the Intro - these are the most important things about the hurricane. Maybe something like this:

"Hurricane Katrina caused extensive loss of property over the entire Mississippi Gulf coast. Storm surges also led to the failure of the levee system protecting New Orleans, flooding 80% of the city." This could be followed by a short bit about the government reaction - maybe jsut say it was heavily criticized, after all, its the article that explains why it was criticized.

So yeah, make the Intro more succinct and hit the important points. I cannot edit this as this is a friends account and i think the account itself is not reputable enough to edit from. Sainsburysandy (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested addition

I am new to contributing to Wikipedia and appreciate any and all assistance. In reviewing the Katrina article, I thought that additional information should be added about the impact of the storm in Louisiana in addition to the levee failures. I apologize for any coding errors as I am trying to learn this system. Here is what I propose:

Under Impact - Louisiana

Additional sentence at end of 1st paragraph - from same cited source as the rest of the paragraph:

Hurricane Katrina made final landfall near the mouth of the Pearl River, with the eye straddling St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana and Hancock County, Mississippi, on the morning of August 29th at about 1445UTC.

Insert new paragraph between 2nd & 3rd paragraphs:

Katrina’s storm surge inundated all parishes, without levees,surrounding Lake Pontchartrain, including St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, St. John the Baptist and St. Charles Parishes. St. Tammany Parish received a two-part storm surge: First, as Lake Pontchartrain rose and the storm blew water from the Gulf of Mexico into the lake. Second, as the eye of Katrina passed, westerly winds pushed water into a bottleneck at the Rigolets Pass, forcing it farther inland. The range of surge levels near the Rigolets is estimated at 13 to 16 feet, not including wave action. [4]

Insert paragraph to become last in the section, following St. Bernard missing count:

According to the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, in St. Bernard Parish, 81% (20,229) of the housing units were damaged. In St. Tammany Parish, 70% (48,792) were damaged and in Placquemines Parish 80% (7,212) were damaged.

[5]

I would also like to suggest that the map referenced at [6] may be a good visual to add to the site to give a simple overview.

How do I proceed from here?

--SCPS70458 (talk) 20:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection still warranted?

Is semi-protection still necessary on this article? The pace of change has slowed considerably. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Octavabasso (talk • contribs) 13:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty awful. Is there a need to remove it?- Sinneed 14:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just the philosophical idea of openness - letting articles be edited by all. But other than that, no. Octavabasso (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very strongly for perma-semiprotecting articles that require it; just see my work on keeping United States protected. However, I support dropping it off this article for a trial to see if the vandals have moved on. --Golbez (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at this. Unfortunately, I'm doubtful it will be any different at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Netherlands Navy Frigate Hr. Ms. Van Amstel arrived from the Netherlands Antilles. The frigate was filled with supplies and had helicopters on board that can be used in rescue actions. Further, The Netherlands sent experts on the subject of water containment and dikes, identification teams and pumps to deliver clean drinking water, F-16s with sophisticated infra red or thermography camera pods (to look for weaknesses in the levees, corpses and hidden survivors) and divers from the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps. On September 7 The U.S. government announced that it would take up the Dutch government's offer to send water pumps, and also five water management experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.178.78 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new discussion re: Jed Horne's book

Today I removed a reference to Jed Horne's book Breach of Faith because the passage supporting material on the opening summary is 1) undocumented and 2) has been refuted in the Hurricane Protection Decision Chronology by Woolley and Shabman, June 2007. In fairness to Mr. Horne, the book was written before more information was released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheldonville (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gross negligence of Army Corps of Engineers + responsibilty of Bush administration for this

See sources quoted here. --Espoo (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source I find there is the lawsuit, i.e. a primary source, as interpreted by an unreliable blogger. Not a good source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the Philadelphia Inquirer? [7] Or Agence France Press: "US Army Corps at fault for New Orleans levee failures: judge" [8] Vicki Rosenzweig (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I personally agree with the claims of gross negligence and failure on the part of the federal government, this article is about the storm of which the levee failures are a part, but not the whole. Massive destruction took place across the entire central gulf region. I think the article should remain balanced. --SCPS70458 (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

The following statement under "Criticism of government response" seems to violate WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS: "The percentage of black victims among storm-related deaths (49%)[103] was below their proportion in the area's population (approx. 60%[104])." I checked the second source (but not the first) and could not find this connection made in the source. If this connection is not made in a reliable source, then one should "not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." I wanted to add the "original research" and "improper synthesis" tags but could not because it is locked. An alternative would be to find a source that makes this connection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.74.203.116 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links have been fixed

It was a simple thing to check the Internet Wayback Machine/archive.org to fix some of the links. Isn't there a easy way of checking how many broken links for left in this article? I didn't see it in the FAR toolbox. Thegreatdr (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like there are 18 dead links left to fix. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Down to 10 dead links. Four are going to be very difficult to replace, as I don't see them in the Internet Wayback Machine. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't very exciting work, but it is very valuable to the many, many readers who can't/aren't-willing-to hunt down the sources when the links die. I am sure you don't do this for a thank-you from some random editor, but: Thank you. :) - Sinneed 15:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sinneed. Even though that's not the main reason for doing this, having work appreciated in some manner is the way to keep editors inspired to do more in wikipedia. As it is, wikipedia usage/comments/requests concerning the TC rainfall climatology is about all that keeps me progressing through that project at work. Back on topic, according to the FAR which occurred last month, fixing all of the dead links is merely the most significant problem with this article. We're going to need to replace some of the newspaper sourcing with more primary sourcing, such as is found in books or journals. That will be the harder part (unless someone already owns those books). =) Thegreatdr (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine links remain dead, and they can't be "revived" via the Internet Wayback Machine. We're going to need to find replacements references for those 9, 2 or 3 of which were relating to the Coast Guard operations during Katrina. Thegreatdr (talk) 16:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be worth double checking the sites them selves as sometimes links get changed from one addresses to another - A big example of this is with the HPC (:P) who have moved all their advisory archives.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought about that with HPC. It's not as if I work there or am one of their webmasters. Um, in any event, in one case I did find a book reference which replaced a news reference, which will help solve the primary source problem this article has right now. Books trump journals/magazines which trump newspaper articles. I'm still chipping away...should be down to 7 dead refs now. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I believe I have resolved the dead link problem, finally. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update?

I just read this article and it seemed out of date with several references saying "As of 2005" or the like. Is this because there are not any new sources or because the article has not been updated? Griffinofwales (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're down to two occurrences of "as of", which should be easy to fix. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only one "as of" is left, and it's awfully recent. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming

I don't see a home for it here. Individual storms are not directly affected by climate... there may be more or fewer each year, average stronger or weaker over long periods of time. This section might be a good addition with a rework to Global warming. "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."- Sinneed 15:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the section completely ignores all statements from climatologists and hurricanologists who say global warming would not noticeably make hurricanes worse. The section is very biased. --Golbez (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive Removed the statment for now per WP:NPOV, if someone wants to rework it to comply with WP:NPOV feel free.

External links section

One of the issues brought up in FAR was that the external links sections needed pruning. I've removed 1/6 of the links, but am not sure how much more to prune back. It's my belief that anything that already exists in the reference section should not also lie within the external links section. It just seems like common sense. If you want any of the removed links back, start a discussion below. I'm thinking we likely need to prune another 10 links away from that section. Any ideas of what else can be removed? Thegreatdr (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basically any advertising services and anything else that breaches WP:EL. Though heres a few that should be dropped IMO

Updated Hurricane Katrina News and Wetlands Information
Charity Navigator's detailed report on the Charitable Response to Hurricane Katrina - redirects to its homepage.
Katrina's Angels - Might break the rules on ELs
Churches of the Lower 9th Ward (post Hurricane Katrina)Jason Rees (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your second and fourth listings. I want to hear from others before removing the first or third. I think the first could be kept, because it is Katrina-related. If the link doesn't go to Katrina-related content (like your second listing), it's gone. One other link you didn't list was removed because it was one of the dead links in this article. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wp:external links - just being related doesn't get it, though. The links should ideally all contain information we would like to include in the article if we could, but can't because of sourcing shortage. That is, it seems reliable enough to add value, but not reliable enough to meet wp:RS, as I see it.- Sinneed 21:13, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That wikipedia page was quite helpful. We're down to 14 external links now (which means 22 have been removed), which I can certainly live with. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion

The following is a closed discussion of the merge. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion is that there is no consensus to merge. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "alternative theories" article has been for its entire existence a dumping ground for theories not important enough to get into this article. This practice is unacceptable per WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, but a series of AfDs have (incorrectly) affirmed their existence because "it's notable". However, there is very little content of use left in the article after a wholescale pruning, and we are left with one section about an "alternative theory" that isn't really, one section about idiots, and one little sentence about the levees. Thus, I propose the following the merger:

The "global warming" section is merged either here or in 2005 Atlantic hurricane season.
The "divine retribution" section just vanishes. It's an outlier among Wikipedia articles to cover it (cf 2010 Haiti earthquake, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, September 11 attacks, Mount Pinatubo, Tunguska event) and really doesn't cover theories as much as it covers religious figures blaming America for its stances towards homosexuality/prostitution/abortion/Israel/Iraq, in an effort to pander/rally their bases.
The "levee failures" sentence is merged into the levee failures section here.

Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging content into this one. This article is already 120KB. It is, IMO too long, and detail needs to be moved out. Cleaning up the Alternative theories article sounds great... I just think this one is huge enough already.- Sinneed 00:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, this article will not be greatly increased by the merger. Less than four kilobytes of usable content is at that article. Additionally, there is the matter of the global warming section being there because climate change deniers rejected its inclusion in the article's infancy. I understand the need to move detail out, but it doesn't mean you can't bring detail in at the same time. Also note that I've proposed that the global warming section can be moved to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season; in that scenario, the net change to this article is +0.5kb. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also with respect, the reference section takes up a significant portion of this article. There's only 59kb of prose, and it is still about 500 words shy of 10,000 words, which I've been told is the general limit for wikipedia articles. As long as it doesn't add more than 500 words, I'd be fine with it. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would be fine with merging the global warming section to either suggested location. As for the "divine retribution" section, I would continue to object to its 'just vanishing' - a merge proposal is not the forum to determine what happens to material that is not merged. I have found over two dozen books in print which reference the "divine retribution" expressions in connection with the hurricane, including books about Hurricane Katrina specifically, and books about religion generally. There are potentially hundreds more such linkages, clearly suggesting the notability of this aspect of the disaster alone. It might fit into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina if space there is not at a premium. Regarding the levee failures, there is also much more material in print about this claim that has not yet made it to the article. bd2412 T 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Katrina, a hurricane that hit a first-world technologically advanced country (albeit one that's still rather religious), warrant coverage of people blaming God for Katrina, but natural phenomena in less developed countries don't? The issue of divine retribution for 21st century natural phenomena for [insert grievance here] is not even a fringe theory; it's idiocy. While I would begrudgingly accept it being put into Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, divine retribution for a big cloud going swirly-windy is not worth our time covering. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do two dozen books in print (at least) discuss the topic? The assertions may well be idiocy, but so is the belief in a Flat Earth; recording and reporting such phenomena in an unbiased manner is encyclopedic. bd2412 T 02:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer the first question. The sources for, at least Haiti and the Boxing Day Tsunami, are definitely out there. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think they're at the same level. Why do we have an article on Social effects of Hurricane Katrina, but not for any of dozens of other hurricanes? Because the scope of the event made everything about it outsized. I see no evidence of al Qaeda (or Israeli zionists) asserting that these other disasters were God punishing the recipient nations for their foreign policy preferences. bd2412 T 03:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People will blame God for anything and everything. You really have to feel sorry for Satan, in that respect. All of his work credited to his (im)mortal enemy. We don't mention Pat Robertson anywhere in 2010 Haiti earthquake despite the media furore over his claim that it was because of devil worship in the 1800s. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, mentioned in Pat Robertson#Controversies and criticisms. So far as I can tell, the Katrina assertions are part of a far larger family of claims by a more diverse group of claimants. bd2412 T 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because that's the proper place for it. It's inconsequential to an article about Haiti; it's important to an article about Robertson. And we can all narrow it down to one thing: "God did X because of Y", where Y is something the claimant doesn't like. It's sort of a god of the gaps, but in places where there isn't a gap. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, this seems to be what is really bothering you. You just don't like the attention given to claims of divine intervention. The fact is, however, that such claims are widespread and a few might even be notable (though probably fewer than are currently listed). In any case, I can't see how this particular discussion is related to the merge proposal. Why does your distaste for divine intervention suggest that we should merge the two articles? Phiwum (talk) 11:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Without said section, the "alternative theories" article is too short to be considered a spinout. And claims of divine retribution are widespread for every natural disaster; I don't see the need to cover them in more detail for this than Haiti, Chile, Pinatubo, Sumatra, Tunguska... Sceptre ^(talk) 16:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Makes this one too large and there is plenty of material in the other--too much to merge in my mind. Further, I greatly object to AfD, DrV, page blanking then trying to merge. We get you don't like the article. Please leave it be. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Lets leave unsourced statements, some of which are made by currently living people, because an AfD decreed (incorrectly) that it was "notable". Sounds like a win-win situation! Sceptre ^(talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I thought you removed all of the unsourced statements from the article (before I added references to several such statements from books in print). bd2412 T 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He was referring to any method of deleting any content, which includes removing unsourced material. Leaving an article's entire contents alone after an AfD because "zomg it's notable", of course, is not how the editorial process works. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It sounded as though you are referring to the present condition of the article. bd2412 T 03:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mentioning "divine" origins for the hurricane would make a mockery of this article. I don't care if religious leaders say that crap, it has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipediarul e s 2221 21:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nearly FAC-tastic

It appears we have now resolved the broken links and large external link section, which were 2 of the 4 problems in the FAR from last month. The last items were to use better sourcing, whether it be books or journals, to replace as many of the newspaper sources as possible, and also to deal with the possibility of the article merger. The discussion above appears to be mostly oppose, so if that remains true, we could remove the merge tag. Thegreatdr (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Intensity

The color code at the top of the page shows that Hurricane Katrina was a category 5 but it made landfall as a category 4. The color code at the top should reflect the intensity of the hurricane at landfall. If I'm wrong just let me know.

Sully Hulin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sullivan9211 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox should always show the peak windspeeds as cyclones can make multiple landfalls with Katrina being such an example.Jason Rees (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Role of levee failures in flooding

This article claims that:

"A June 2007 report by the American Society of Civil Engineers indicated that two-thirds of the flooding were caused by the multiple failures of the city's floodwalls.[31]"

I just looked through every instance of the word "flood" or "flooding" in the source document and found no evidence to back up this claim. I have not read through the entire document, but even without doing so, this statement does not appear to be a statement that would be made by the ASCE, as it is poorly defined (what does two-thirds of flooding mean?). I do not have the time to further research the matter, but perhaps someone else would be interested in doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.55.97 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Partial protection thoughts

Katrina had an enormous impact on the south-central US, especially the areas along the coast east and west centered around New Orleans. It also led to many abuses by many people. Very many young persons required to study this important bit of modern history (and of course, other vandals, just pointing out a specific motivation) are likely to use it as a grafiti wall... but many people who may have important things to add (hopefully even some of the same students) may strongly wish to remain anonymous. The vandalism is annoying, and clutters my watchlist, and I really appreciate the admins who have protected it (it is a nice break).

But if we are going to go to FA the protection will come off and we will have to deal with it anyway. I wonder if we won't best serve WP by leaving the partial protection off, and just dealing with the day-to-day vandals. I don't feel strongly either way, but wanted to put this in front of the part of the community that is interested in and watching the article. Not looking for a !vote or anything, just suggesting thought and possibly discussion.

Thanks again to the admins who have protected, and the many editors who have made contributions and fixed vandalism.- Sinneed 18:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought based on your comment Sinneed. Why dont we nom Katrina for This? Jason Rees (talk) 22:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion, at the moment, thus I did not reply.- Sinneed 15:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina refugees.....

Per this article it seems the refugees might give Texas a new seat in Congress:

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/01/texas_population_gain_from_hur.html

Why is there no talk of this? Why is there no discussion about the hundreds of thousands of refugees still in Texas? Please add a sub topic to this page. Or at least merge the topic into the 'effects' sub category. Thanks.

It's interesting, but I don't think it's entirely true, or properly verifiable. Notice how the news report says "might" in the title. Texas was steadily growing before Katrina, and only 150,000 refugees isn't enough to guarantee another seat. The total would have to be upwards of 600,000. Now, if Louisiana lost a seat due to Katrina, that might be worth putting, but the source would have to be a little more definitive. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of State of Emergency Declaration

This paragraph is misleading. The State of Emergency Declaration is dated August 27th. The letter rebutting Mr Brown's testimony about the State of Emergency Declaration is dated August 28th. (footnote 20)

The date of the letter referenced by Gov Blanco should be stated for clarity. 69.199.93.210 (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast map

I have uploaded the forecast map released by NHC for Hurricane Katrina on commons with the name Hurricane Katrina 2005 5day.gif Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where would we need it though? — Iune (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nowhere, but if you had any doubts regarding the track map, you could refer to it. !Anirudh Emani (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please update the amount of cost in damages to Katrina page?

Found estimates about $125 billion from what I've seen. Westcoastkitty77 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC) ?[reply]

If you have a source, sure. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

If Katrina really dumped over 8 inches of rain on Cuba, I feel like there should be section about impact in Cuba, not just 3 sentences. Also, were there any impact on Bahamas? The category 5 Katrina can also send enormous waves over Texas and perhaps sections of Mexico. HurricaneSpin (talk · contribs) 20:31, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from EvanTaiani, 19 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I'd like to change "eastern North America" in the "Areas affected" section to "south eastern North America" EvanTaiani (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's already

Done. Gfoley4 / Wanna chat? 02:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Copiapó mining accident article improvements

Hello, Your "A" class article is a good example for us and I have been looking it over closely.

I am one of the editors working hard on the 2010 Copiapó mining accident article. It has come a very long way in a very short period of time and now that it has fallen off the main page and pedestrian edits have subsided, we would like to prepare it for reassessment. The article is currently rated as "C" class across the board but much has been done since then.

I think one section, or series of sections ours is missing is coverage of the international contributions to the effort. Another section that we may need to add is a professional critique of the government's handling of the entire search and rescue operation. The latter section may be difficult to do since most of the coverage appears to be laudatory in nature. Any advice on how to best present that or locating more professional, critical sources would be appreciated. Not looking to add anti-gov propaganda and hatred to it, just balanced critique.

I would like to invite the editors who have helped build this great article to visit our article and offer any gut level advice on what more we need to work on.

Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. January 12, 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 27, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
^ "Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2018". National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2019-02-06. Retrieved 2019-02-09.

Cite error: There are <ref group=nb> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=nb}} template (see the help page).

[Costliest_TC's-1] Costliest U.S. tropical cyclones tables update (PDF) (Report). United States National Hurricane Center. January 12, 2018. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 27, 2018. Retrieved January 12, 2018.

[2] "Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2018". National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI). 2019-02-06. Retrieved 2019-02-09.

[1]

[2]

[nb 1]