Talk:Hurricane Katrina: Difference between revisions

Reminder: Please Don't Feed The Trolls

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

At this point there is so much information, repeated constantly as well as irreleveant information (including a long description of Hurricaine Betsy) that the article is starting to lose its usefulness. I wewnt through and removed all the duplicate info, but it was restored. Please do not leave duplicate info. You aren't helping anyone by making it harder to get a clear and concise description of events, both current and recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.181.35 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The thing is, the article here is not just a concise description of events. It is an encyclopedia article, which deals with the history, effects, and other things related to the storm that you won't see on the news. The concise description of events is left to Wikinews. --Titoxd 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention, due to the nature of this storm, this requires a HUGE article. This is an unprecedented situation here! CrazyC83 22:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What? Unprecedented? Bigger than Ben Hur?? Katrina is getting way too much attention. Is it far more serious than the 1918 Spanish Flu or the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake?? Have a look at the articles. There is more on Katrina than both of these combined. Leistung 09:14, 30 August 2005 (EST)

All things in time. It will shrink naturally as needs dictate. But right now, the volume of information outweighs the need to trim it. Deleting information now, unless it's blatantly duplicated, is highly counter productive. --Golbez 22:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is for editors to find the section where the information they have belongs, and verify that it's not already there. A lot of people just keep adding things to the New Orleans section, much of which is duplicated elsewhere, making that section virtually unreadable. Miraculouschaos 18:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inserting dividers in the hopelessly disorganized "Impact by Region:New Orleans" section.Miraculouschaos 20:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the section on Risk to New Orleans could largely be moved to a separate article linked to New Orleans. The risk doesn't pass with Katrina.--Kbk 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews's main headline is still "New Orleans announces mandatory evacuation"; this article seems far more current. Think that's just a function of more contributors on WP? ~~ N (t/c) 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid that the prominence of Wikipedia makes it more prone for active Wiki-news-editors to come here instead of Wikinews. But that's something good in a way. --Titoxd 23:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I straightened out the intro somewhat in order to reduce awkwardness and improve the summary nature of the introductory paragraph, but I know it still needs more work. Jpers36 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Metroblogging New Orleans is consistently being removed from the External links section even though it's a valid source. There's some wikipedians who instantly delete any link to a blog assuming it's inaccurate - I won't get into that here but this link in particular is being sourced by major news sources outside of the US [1] and I know of the national news papers currently writing stories quoting the site. If a link to a local TV broadcast is valid why isn't a link to a local website where the people are talking about what is going on? This isn't some personal blog where people are writing about their feelings and their kittens, it's a city focused blog writing about news on the local level and so far today has been far more up to date than many other sources which are linked without question. Sean Bonner 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

If it's being used as a 'source' it should be cited not external linked. No one is making the argument that it's inaccurate (thought they could, it appears to contain a lot of conflicting information), but rater the external links section isn't the place to link to news sites. The majority of other links are mostly authortative information sources, and not news sites. 24.165.233.150 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever it's worth to the audience out there, I'm sure that Sean's motivations are pure, but I do think he should have mentioned the potential personal interest he has in this matter: He runs metroblogging.com, and presumably benefits directly from the income from the advertising there. 24.165.233.150 01:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't benefit directly from it. All income from ads goes back into the project, which is entirely run by volunteers - including myself. I also don't like the assumption that I'm hiding my relationship with metroblogging, it's right on my user page here on wikipedia and all over metroblogging and my own personal sites. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

At the risk of pissing a few people off, I am putting the link back in: I've read though some of it, and I believe it provides useful information about the conditions in the area. I won't start an edit war about it, but I think it ought to be in there.
--Baylink 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Why would we link that site and not CNN, NBC, etc? Wikipedia isn't a news link farm, so a bunch of links to news sites really isn't what we need.Gmaxwell 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<sigh> I should think that would be clear: a) everyone knows where to find CNN and NBC, and b) they're not *there*. When something like *this* is going on, yeah, we sort of *are* a news link farm. No, I wouldn't expect it to survive the Current Events tag, but it *is* useful *now*. And that's not really germane to the issue of how you handled it, anyway.
--Baylink 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How I handled it? I wasn't even the first to remove the link and it has been removed by several other editors, most likely because it just doesn't belong! Look at the links there, they are to government websites.. the red cross, NOAA weather pages... none of them are news sites. Gmaxwell 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gmaxwell, clearly, disagrees, and can't be bothered to be polite in his summary comment. Never mind; no reason to include *useful* links here, clearly.
--Baylink 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I apologies for being somewhat sharp with my edit summary (as much as calling the link spam can be considered as such), but I thought it was readded by Sean for the umpenteenth time and not by someone else. Gmaxwell 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely up for, and welcoming the discussion about where the link fits best, if it's better suited for some other section of the page I have no problem with that but simply removing it because it's a blog is stupid. It's releavent info. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've explained to you multiple times that it isn't being removed simply because its a blog, and I just don't know how to make it any more clear. There isn't a basis for us to include that particular site and not include links to a hundred other current events sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. 24.165.233.150 12:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't just some current event site, it's people in New Orleans and from New Orleans posting info directly about what is going on. It's not some link for a collection, it's specificly related, as specific as any of the links to local webcams or local news sources. It's not CNN reporting things 3rd hand, it's directly relevent. Major news from all over the world is linking to and quoting from the site - It's not spam for crying out loud. Other people understand this, what are you missing? Sean Bonner 14:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is really rude to keep removing the link to Metroblogging, because metroblogging links to wikipedia in many places. Thats just wrong and bad netiquette. I put the link back, and I expect it to stay! Sean, don't let some moron, who is probably just jealous of your fame, push you around.

The link is not being removed out of jealousy or improper "netiquette", but because it does not conform with Wikipedia's established policies for external links. The term "moron" is a personal attack and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. (~~~~). Dystopos 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a note, the same link was added to Tulane University, List of New Orleanians, Louisiana Superdome, French Quarter, Greater New Orleans, New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival, and New Orleans, Louisiana, all in the last hour or so by User:12.111.139.2. I'm reverting all of them except the last, where I think there's a reasonable discussion to be had about it. Dystopos 22:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for keeping it on the hurricane page, I think that is the most important since most people see it first.12.111.139.2 23:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)-- I see that dreamguy, in continuing his attacks on blogs has removed all blog related links, including the one you left. I reverted his vandalism. Other users should heed the consensus established here. 12.111.139.2 23:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please stop referring to removing nonnotable links (especially ones put in to spam the encyclopedia) as "vandalism". Please read and follow the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, particulary the What vandalism is not section. Also please note that your attempts to rewrite the Spam and External Link policies here to justify your actions have gotten you one step away from being blocked. Desist your actions immediately and stop pretending that you are being harassed by people when we are only doing exactly what we are supposed to be doing. DreamGuy 23:59, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• The only consensus that I can detect so far here is that the metroblog link is not terribly useful to the article and that the arguments made for keeping it are not germane to WP policy. I did not leave the link intact because I endorse it, but because discussion is ongoing. DreamGuy's behavior is not vandalism. Making undiscussed changes to WP:EL and other policy pages in support of your actions is improper. Dystopos 00:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the circumstances and the amount of vandals that have come, this has to be one of the most organized and best maintained article sites I have ever seen for a current event. Truly remarkable. This sets the standard for hurricane pages, and even for current events as a whole! CrazyC83 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aw... <kick> <shuffle> Thanks.  :-)
--Baylink 02:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Almost makes seeing the Goatse pic in ASCII form three times last night worth it ;) -Loren 05:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too want to compliment you people for such a good and factual report. I'm watching this page... and the discussion too :) bsod 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap. Don't watch the Talk page... :-)
--Baylink 03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is. I, Titoxd, award the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to all those who have helped maintain this article clean from vandalism and junk. 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I posted an external link to this article, Time Magazine: Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?, which was later removed by 24.165.233.150, with the comment, "global warming stuff doesn't belong in this article, try the article on hurricanes..." (here's the diff). I disagree, as the Time article specifically addresses this particular hurricane. I was under the impression that there was an interest in having such information included, per the earlier discussion above. I would like to avoid a dispute on this point, so I would like to know what the consensus of the community is as to whether this external link should be included. -- BDAbramson ^talk 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special about this hurricane related to global warming. Material about how overactive this season has been, or on what causes hurricanes in general really should go into the main hurricane article or into the article on the season... If someone is interested in the global warming angle, they'll also be interested in all the information we provide on why this season is more active than others. If there is something special about global warming and *this* storm that I'm missing, then it should be discussed in the text, not just tossed out as an external link. Gmaxwell 03:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:BDAbramson and earlier comments that it should be here. This hurricane being a particularly devastating one and people are talking about the link in general, so no reason to not have it there. Saying it belongs on the main hurricane page is also true, but not an argument for it not being here. DreamGuy 05:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well I managed to mostly sway BD, checkout his talk page and mine. After looking into the matter more indepth I also object to the link because it appears to be random speculation by some journalist which is not tied back to any verifiable research. 24.165.233.150 06:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:BDAbramson, link the article. --Titoxd 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[removed long article that was copyright violation copied and pasted here without permission trying to start a fight about global warming... link to it if you want, don't steal it.] DreamGuy 22:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

WDSU has just reported that the Harrison County, MS EOC has just reported 50 storm-related deaths.
--Baylink 03:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I can believe that number, we should wait for more confirmation - they heavily overestimated with Charley ("dozens" reported dead in Punta Gorda, in reality less than 10 died there). CrazyC83 03:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it is now widely reported. For now, they should be listed as direct deaths unless an indirect cause is mentioned (i.e. building fire). CrazyC83 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better way to illustrate the chart of fatalities by state? An "inland" death chart listing (as of now) the single death in Georgia, and separated from the totals of Miss., La., Ala., and Fla. Seems to me these charts should be merged, but it wouldn't be appropriate under only coastal or inland headings. Thoughts? --Twigboy 03:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The inland chart will likely grow as deaths from Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New York and Ontario, among other states/provinces are eventually added... after all, Katrina has only just started affecting the inland areas. The listings will eventually grow. CrazyC83 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but my point is that the distinction between coastal/inland fatalities seems to be arbitrary. For example, Hinds County, MS appears to be more than 100 miles inland, yet it's listed as "coastal." Is it coastal just because it's in a state that has a Gulf coast? --Twigboy 03:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coastal states here are MS, AL, LA and FL - the states directly affected from the coastal impact. It is easiest to keep the states together (so, even if it happens in, say, Huntsville AL, it will go in the coastal list under Alabama). Inland states(/provinces) are everything else. CrazyC83 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a table that present the total tally, coastal and inland. How about a new section call "Summary on casualities", just before the two sections? --Vsion 04:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnn reported from AP 55 people dead. Thats a good enough source to put that number in the artilce. Also we should metion it has now become one of the legendary hurricanes. Such as besty, camille, hugo, Andrew.

I just combined the sections and renamed it "Impact by region". It will also show a combined death toll. CrazyC83 04:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone else notice a striking similarity in the path of Andrew to Katrina's? I thought Katrina was following a strange path until I saw Andrew. Through lower Florida, across the Gulf, through Louisiana, and back up towards the Northeast. Staxringold 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The tracks are somewhat similar, but Katrina's strongest landfall was its second instead of its first.

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A range of IPs has been inserting random characters in words all over the article. Someone, please report this "Sandbox vandal" to WP:VIP, since it's almost impossible to do it myself, trying to keep up with the vandal.

Kind regards, Titoxd 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed a variety of IP addresses over there. Hopefully they aren't AOL ones, because if they are, blocking won't help.DreamGuy 05:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it sure has been a lot quieter now. Thank you very much! --Titoxd 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit adding this link: [2]. I don't object to having it in the article, but I'm unsure if it should be there. What do you people think? --Titoxd 05:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not relevant enough. Would be fine in an article on "New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" if that one is ever written, but not here. Shanes 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shrug, I added it I thought it was quite relevant. This is why:

New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces funding cuts in 2006

From the article: "The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." This article addresses the future preparedness of the New Orleans to Hurricanes like Katrina. It could be added to future predictions, or a section to reaction to the disaster.

CNN is reporting there is a two block wide breach in the 17th St Canal levee. Lake Pontchartrain is pouring into Orleans Parish. Water around Tulane University Hospital is rising one inch every minute. Won't put in article until corroborated online. --Golbez 06:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

CNN has just reported it again, statement from the Army Corps of Engineers on the breach is expected within the next two hours. Also reported here (second article down): [3]-Loren 07:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per CNN 0302 CDT: Hospital evacuations temporarily placed on hold. Army Corps of Engineers currently in meeting discussing levee breach. -Loren 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

200 ft break confirmed by NOFD officials. -Loren 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the section on "Previous Prediction" to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. I feel this is the most suitable section to be transfered. Ok? --Vsion 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be safe. We are praying for you.

The article says "Since Lousiana and Mississippi is an economically depressed area, widespread looting has been reported in hurricane stricken areas." I don't know if I should take this out as I haven't heard of widespread looting, only incidents, and I haven't heard of Louisiana and Missisppi being 'economically depressed.' I don't know, I may be wrong here, hence the posting. 129.110.199.227 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the level of economic depression in Louisiana, but I dropped the "since" word, as I believe looting can occur everywhere, given the "right" circumstances. But, yeah, maybe we should just drop the whole statement about economic depressed area. Especially if it's not even true.... Shanes 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take out the economically depressed bit, and the widespread bit, and just put 'incidents of looting.' At the very worst, it means the same thing anyway, just more general. Dafrito 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think I beat you too it ;-). Shanes 07:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

*cries.* Dafrito 08:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought looters were shot on sight in the US. So looting is very unlikely. As for economically depressed, the average person gets $27000 per year in Louisiana. Easy to live on that for a family of, say 6 (6x$27000)! Leistung 10:07, 30 August 2005 (EST)

I don't think you and I are talking about the same US. Perhaps the United States of Mexico, but not the United States of America. Also, average income is the mean, not the median. Where income inequality is significant, like Louisiana (and the USA in general), the mean will be far higher than the median. A more typical family earns $27000 per year total. 24.34.190.187 10:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, Mexican Wikipedians read this article too... --Titoxd 17:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Looters may be summarily shot by the police, army, or property owners. Extraordinary measures, combined with an impressive show of force, help to discourage looting and to disperse crowds that would now find a normal show of force non-threatening." Wikipedia quote from Looting

Leistung 19:40, 30 August 2005 (CET)

Key word in all that is "may". Normally, at least with police/national guard forces, that does not begin happening until things reach near riot levels in most areas. Individual property owners might shoot on sight, but in this case, most are not around their property and any potential looters would shy away from an obvious armed pressence for 'safer' targets. One more thing, despite the view of our nation presented by Hollywood, most Americans do not reach for a gun first. While there may be shootings reported, it will not be widespread unless things get much much worse. Donovan Ravenhull 19:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as the section says, "widespread looting" is very serious, and these could be "summarily shot by the police, army, or property owners." I also understand that nearly all Americans have their automatic gun, as it is part of the Constitution.

Leistung 08:07, 31 August 2005 (CET)

The 2nd Amendment gives the states the right to form militias. Please, stop with the trollish anti-American comments. If I recall correctly, you were the one who said that this is just another example of Americans "crying wolf". --Titoxd 06:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, your threats are noted. I am not a troll. My opinions are just diametrically opposed to yours personally. I am entitled to my opinion, as are you. As for being anti-American, I have many American friends. I often stick up for America. Doesn't mean to say I have to crawl on my belly before you, as I am so frightened that you will call me names.

Leistung 09:56, 31 August 2005 (CET)

There were no threats to note, and no one is asking you to crawl on your belly, but you are way out of line on your comments. Those were undeniably trollish statements. This talk page is not some place for people to argue about alleged faults of Americans, it's about making an encyclopedia article. Please take these comments to a site that they would be more appropriate on. DreamGuy 08:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Again, if someone says something you disagree with this is considered by you "trollish". Note that I did not initiate bringing America into the conversation in this Section. I referred to looters in general. It seems that some Americans are over sensitive. The are plenty of anti European remarks around, and this seems OK. It is by me anyway. As for the encyclopedia article, this is a discussion page, not the article itself. I thought that was where we were supposed to discuss things. leistung 12:36, August 31, 2005 (CET)

This section is still on the page: "Katrina may come close to the Ohio River Valley, even scraping southern Illinois, causing storms to rise from the remnants that are left behind." The forecast track doesn't have it coming anywhere near there, instead crossing the Kentucky line around Hopkinsville and heading into Indiana or Ohio. It hasn't been forecast to go through the Purchase or Illinois to my knowledge (if it does, good, we need the rain) - flood watches don't even cover any county north or west of Graves.

Also, is it true that TVA is opening spillways? I heard (as of Sunday) the rivers were low enough to impede barge traffic. 24.34.190.187 10:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the storm is not a single point or line following a projected track. Check out this current radar, Southern Illinois, as well as Indiana and Ohio are feeling the effects of Katrina. --Holderca1 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I checked local weather (I'm from the Purchase but living out of state) and saw the rainfall totals. Not much except around Fort Massac, but they recorded bits of rain associated with the storm even in Missouri. We didn't get much at all; now I'm more worried about river flooding and the effects on the economy. 24.34.190.187 03:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the intro, last para:

.... and 80% of New Orleans is said to be under water. Currently 750,000 people are without power in the New Orleans area, and it may be several weeks before power is restored. The parts of the city with the worst flooding were in the east, where the storm was most severe. Roughly 40% of the city is under water...

I'm thinking it's one or the other, personally... J.K. 10:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the 40% and put the 25 foot deep with the eighty percent. That's coming from an interview with the New Orleans mayor, though, for full disclosure, he said "The city of New Orleans is in a state of devastation. We probably have 80 percent of our city underwater. With some sections of our city, the water is as deep as 20 feet." So I guess we should just quote that directly, since he said probably, too. Dafrito 11:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of the quote, but can you find a cite? J.K. 11:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN cites it here, I believe. [4] Fifth paragraph or so. Dafrito 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters cites the quote here, too, [5] Dafrito 11:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, here's the video of the interview. [6] Dafrito 11:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we summarize all that into one paragraph or a series of paragraphs, or is it our intention to keep the reports mostly chronological? Dafrito 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it makes sense to refactor all of the information into a series of paragraphs, but I think that would be hard to do at this time. I would find it hard to know what to keep, especially with all of the rapid changes that are occurring. It's probably a better idea to wait until the flow of information slows down before massaging it into a more encyclopedic form. That being said, be bold. --timc | Talk 14:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AP reports up to 80 deaths in harrison county alone. So I changed the number to 54-80 people killed in the deaths chart. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina_3;_ylt=An2t.4FWAg4ftOwvj9yMQYsbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Leave it for now.

I just updated all the lists to show that (64-90 direct deaths total). If anything says "up to", it is definitely best to show it the way you did, as a range. CrazyC83 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The AP report said that it is the MS governor who gave this figure 50-80. I've updated the Mississippi section on this. When changing the fatalities chart, please update the relevant region section also, so that other can verify what's the source and time-stamp, and know how to update it when things changes. thks. --Vsion 21:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WDSU TV has reported that Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco has ordered the police to block all incoming roadways into Lousiana. Zzxcnet 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean into Louisiana from Southern Mississippi? I doubt they'd be blocking roadways across the entire state (from Texas into Shreveport, for example). Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

"O’Brien-Molina, the Red Cross spokeswoman, said state officials shut off interstate highways re-entering Louisiana to keep people from returning to flooded areas. I-10 is completely closed down,” she said. “No one can go back in..." Times-Picayune online Rmhermen 05:53, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Place unsorted developments here seen/heard on local news streams, local radio and other sources.

Clarion-Ledger

Beauvoir (Biloxi, Mississippi), final retirement home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major Biloxi historic attraction, was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The site also contains the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. No word on damage to the library or other historic buildings on the site.

WDSU

National guard refugees are bringing more people into the Superdome.

Looting is out of control. Grocery, retail stores being looted in flooded areas.

At least 200 people rescued from boats, rooftops.

People remaining in city that can get out are urged by the mayor to leave via the Crescent City Connection, the only remaining outbound route.

-- Zzxcnet 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Patients are being evacuated via helicopter at Tulane Medical Center.

The Superdome is surrounded by two feet of water.

-- Zzxcnet 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 90 has been "destroyed", and is "no longer a highway" - in the words of a WDSU anchor.

The Hardrock Casino has "50% damage".

The fire chief in Gulfport estimates that 75% of the buildings have major roof damage.

-- Zzxcnet 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Highway 90? Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

yes. I fixed it. Zzxcnet 21:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Gov. Kathleen Blanco said Tuesday afternoon that people now huddled in the Superdome and other rescue centers need to be evacuated." [7] (and see CNN summary below). --timc | Talk 21:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Also CNN has shown video of the alabama coastline where small to big yatchs and even small container ships have washed ashore and some very far inland.

CNN reports: "Rising waters force evacuation of tens of thousands who sought refuge in New Orleans rescue centers, state governor says. More soon." --timc | Talk 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWL-TV

Congress is working on passing an emergency spending bill for rebuilding and recovery efforts in the affected areas.

Officials may attempt to use boxcars filled with dirt/sand to block the flooding on the 17th street canal.. as they are afraid the sandbags would be washed away. Zzxcnet 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There have been reports that this strm may have killed hundrends and it is quite possibile due to the fact many people were in there homes during the 25-30 foot storm surge. This article explains. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050830/ts_nm/weather_katrina_deaths_dc_1;_ylt=AtZFfubsrlut5mf181oj4eUbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I think it's getting to the point of calling this the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, considering the new reports rolling in. The optimism from yesterday has quickly vanished. --tomf688^<TALK> 19:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people and destroyed the city's long-term prospects; Houston is famous today because of Galveston's loss. I put a link to this near the bottom of the article on Katrina, but a chap called Golbez took it out, perhaps thinking it was inappropriate. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to start a petty war with someone who could block me. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not going to dignify such martyrdom with a response. Too bad, too, we could have come to an agreement. --Golbez 22:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

There is too much of this going on. Self styled policemen deleting whatever they don't like. The article about the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 is highly releveant, as it shows the effects of a truly major event in compasion, and brings Katrina into perspective.

Leistung 09:35, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know what kind of damage has the French Quarter sustained? It seems to be missing from the article. --129.219.6.86 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Titoxd, who is too lazy to sign in). Validating my edit. --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is being reported that it has started to flood, even though it was dry last night. Zzxcnet 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; WDSU(/WAPT) showed tape last night from a corner approximately 3 blocks from their studios with dry streets.
--71.100.10.116 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a page to which we can refer to add that information to the article? --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have video archives of WDSU and WWL-TV that I've saved from the live streams since before the storm hit. I can get segments of this to use as source material if neccessary. Zzxcnet 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would a Category be useful here? Not sure if such would be useful long term, but in the short term I would think it would be very useful to have a single way to link articles for the variuos effected areas, and other related articles. But I wanted to gage opinion before I just went and created just a thing. TexasAndroid 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Nah. There's no need for a category, all the places that were affected can (or should!) be reached from the article. --Titoxd 21:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except you have to wade through the article to find them. A category would be much more convinient way to navigate from one place to another. Also, if you're on, say, the New Orleans page, all the places are not so easily reached. TexasAndroid 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't oppose it either, I just think it's unnecessary. But it has now been created. --Titoxd 21:31, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • For an idea on what articles could be in this category, see Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake --Vsion 21:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC).[reply]

There is now a need for a separate article on Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans as the section is expanding fast; leave a summary on this page instead. I need to rush to another place, can someone help to do it? thks. --Vsion 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a seperate article would be needed for this, however I lack the experience to do this myself, on a page as important as this one. The fate of the city lies in fixing the breeched levees, and efforts to fix it are underway now. I suppose quite a lot of information about this will come in in the next few hours/night, and the situation at the superdome also will generate text. Also it will relieve the main page from the specific New Orleans situation. bsod 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I think we will need lots of separate pages. Some of them include:

• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana (the rest of the state)
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Alabama
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Florida
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on other areas (if damage gets too severe in other states or we have a lot of information, a separate page would work, even if we have like 15 articles)
• Effect of Hurricane Katrina on the economy (for the "other impacts") CrazyC83 23:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

On Florida? I don't know about that; it's not big enough for that. There will need to be a template to handle all of this. Either way, I took care of the New Orleans article joturner 23:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this isn't necessarily a good idea. This kind of content will eventually reappear at this page, because of the prominence of the story and editors' desire to add new information. I'd like if the content were returned. --Titoxd 23:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, from the experience of Indian Ocean Tsunami, and 7 July London Bombing; this will work out. It's the level of details. The summary and the most important information will remain here, in fact, this paragraph will be similar to the lead section in the New Orleans page. Other local details will be on the New Orleans page itself. --Vsion 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see that it is working out. Keep up the good work! --Titoxd 00:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parts of this talk page relating to New Orleans should probably be moved to the New Orleans effects page as well, to minimize bloat here. This would allow for more relavant information on the talk pages. Zzxcnet 01:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As of me writing this, there are nine images in the Preparations and Storm History sections alone. That is obviously too many? Which should we get rid of? Edit: I think the one under transportation and military should be first to go. The one with the track is unnecessary since the wind swath image implies the track already. joturner 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, it makes a lot of sense to edit this page with short or even single-sentence, "journalism"-style paragraphs, which indeed many people are doing. Once most of the initial reportage and shock gives way, however, this article will need to be redone from an encyclopedic standpoint. It will be a large task, which perhaps will require some coordination by admins or others. --Jacqui M Schedler 23:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions:

• Use the inverted pyramid style: Put the most important information up top. This applies to articles, sections and sub-sections
• For each section, the first paragraph should summarize the current status, especially on the casualties figure and dangerous floods condition.
• For each region, put information on casualties first, followed by floods condition, then on specific structural damages.
• For casualties, put information on confirmed deaths first, before the speculated/projected deaths. Please provide sources on all information.
• If a section gets too large, it's time to create a new article for it. Leave the lead/summary paragraph on this page.

Feel free to append/modify the above inline --Vsion 00:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does crossing one of the Great Lakes and hitting land on the other side count as a landfall? CrazyC83 00:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I doubt it. I think landfall only deals with oceans; the lakes are inland waters and wouldn't have effects on the storm different from that of land. 129.64.3.82 00:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• And see also point 11 in the third talk archive, which has a similar discussion, which was also unresolved. [8] -Ashley Pomeroy 05:05, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Little has been said yet of what will be one of the greatest public health emergencies in decades. No clean water, no working sewers, no electricity, no telephones, no cell phone services, closed-down hospitals, filthy dirty septic/toxic floodwater contaminating everything everywhere, etc. I am speaking of old horrors like typhoid, cholera, and other diarrheal diseases, not to mention skin infections, untreated injuries, etc. It's a horror story in the making. Perhaps another article: Public Health Effects of Hurricane Katrina.

I just heard Tulane University Hospital lost its backup generator. They are in the dark. There are still lots of sick people there. This is a genuine public health catastrophe. --FourthAve 01:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thought i'd go out on a limb here and make a pitch, this article has a LOT of info, so much so that it really takes away from the article itself. I'm putting forth that one page be devoted to the actual meteorological history of Katrina, including records and such, with a round up of all the damages and effects. The second page, of which the effects on New Orleans was a good precursor - could be named Hurricane Katirna Aftermath. Just a thought... any other ideas, suggestions? Boort 00:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article to summarize the reports of damage to public facilities and infrastructure. There is still so much that isn't reported yet. --Twigboy 03:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN and WWL are reporting that inmates at Orleans Parish Prison are rioting and have taken hostages, including the wife and children of a deputy, who took them there for safety.--YoungFreud 00:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed by ABC News, see [9]. A news conference will be held at 9PM EST (right about now), according to ABC News. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk 01:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this press conference anywhere... did anyone see it? (and hopefully someone has a recording/transcript for reference) Zzxcnet 02:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At a 9:30CDT (10:30EDT) news conference, they were unable to confirm reports of a prison riot. If this is added to the main article or the New Orleans article, it should be said that this is unconfirmed. Zzxcnet 02:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pump 6 (at the 17th St. Canal Levee) has now failed, as confirmed by Major C Ray Nagin on WWL-TV. This pump had been partially offsetting the levee breach. Since the sandbagging effort has failed, major flooding is expected. I think this deserves a mention on the main article page. I've already added it to the New Orleans effects page. This announcement came shortly after 8:00pm CDT. Zzxcnet 01:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. Be bold. --Titoxd 01:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes go ahead, it's worthy. Good thing about having a separate article on New Orleans is that, even if others remove the content in this page for trimming, they don't have to worry about losing that information, as it's still preserved in the "children" pages. Keep updating what's heard from TV. --Vsion 01:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added it. The effort at blocking the flooding has been all but abandoned, as the breach is expected to worsen in the overnight hours, putting the entire city at the Lake Pontchartrain's water level. With no pumping capacity, the water will flow into the city without limit. Zzxcnet 02:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Tixod for cleaning up this mess. Reported vandalism.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:38, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem. Thanks for reporting him. --Titoxd 01:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I don't understand. How can the water level goes up a few feets above sea level? Any clue? --Vsion 01:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not being a NOAA oceanographer my way of saying it is that in New Orleans they are at sea level. The water level in the Gulf/Mississippi River rises above the normal surface level, there probably a scientific word for that, like when they say mean tide is at such and such time. The water then has to go somewhere and over the land it would be "above sea level."Kyle Andrew Brown 01:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The water coming down the missisippi river from "north" is coming from higher ground and is intrinsiclly at "above sea level." The land AROUND New Orleans is above sea level. there are some miles of land before you get to the sea. Rick Boatright 02:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The normal level for Lake Pontchartrain is one foot above sea level. Right now the gauges say it's four feet, due to the rain and flooding from Katrina. It's dropping fairly rapidy, though.--Kbk 05:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have anything about this? Cutting vacation time too late, comparison to Bush's reaction to tsunami, 9/11, comparison to Bush 41's reaction to SF quake of 1989, distraction to Iraq War. Is any of this relevant?

That's a POV violation, even though I would agree with you (too much pressure on poor Haley Barbour and Kathleen Blanco). CrazyC83 02:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need whatsoever to have his response unless it is extremely notable - and it ain't. --Golbez 02:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, he probably took too much time to react, like Bush Sr. took when Andrew hit Florida. However, those are opinions, therefore Points of View, therefore POV, therefore unsuitable for the article. --Titoxd 02:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But you could easily spin it in terms of news or commentary reaction ("Several (credible sources / notable weblogs) have expressed upset at the perceived slow reaction of President Bush to etc"). A couple here ("CNN's Cafferty Takes Cheap Shot at Bush's “Vacation" After Hurricane") and here ("2006 Budget slashes funding for the US Army Corps of Engineers, NO Districts, by $71.2 million dollars") to get started, and just search Google news for 'bush' and 'orleans'. Emphasise the cut in National Guard funding in the context of the fact that Popular Mechanics predicted this a few years ago. [10] How could Bush ignore Popular Mechanics? -Ashley Pomeroy 05:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

According to this report on NOLA.com, the Louisiana state Attorney General's office has said that no such term as "martial law" exists in Louisiana; from the text of the article it would seem that "state of emergency" would be more accurate. I haven't done any editing on this because I have no specialist knowledge, and really don't know anything more than what the aforementioned NOLA.com piece says. Loganberry (Talk) 02:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• All the major news outlets have called it martial law, and since the military moved in to provide security, it seems like the correct term. I'd leave it as is. --Titoxd 02:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • And now an anon has reverted it. He quoted MSNBC, which is ironic, because I heard Brian Williams saying that parts of Lousiana were under martial law. Any official (or newer) information? --Titoxd 02:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise; in the first instance refer to it as "a state of emergency ("martial law")" and then refer to it as martial law thereafter. "State of emergency" is slightly confusing outside the US, because it's a specific condition, whereas martial law is pretty much understood worldwide. -Ashley Pomeroy 05:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Government officials are already considering taking these stranded people out of New Orleans/Hell's Half Acre. I've heard some pretty wild ideas about how to remove these people from this hell hole. One was to use cruise ships to take them to other ports on the Gulf coast (Galveston, Pensacola, Tampa, etc.) I guess we should use any means possible but what does everyone else think?

E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 03:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News (yeah, I know) is reporting that two men opened fire on the first precinct NOPD stationhouse with automatic weapons. Police returned fire, and the two men fled to the French Quarter, but could not give chase. And Reuters is reporting sharks in the water.--YoungFreud 04:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Fox News never tells the truth. If you're going to disclaim it with "yeah, I know", why bother citing them at all? --Golbez 04:33, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Shark, not sharks --Scapegoat pariah 05:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing on Google news about 'shots' or 'gunfire' + 'orleans' or 'police station' + 'orleans', and it raises the question as to how the miscreants "fled to the French Quarter" - boats? A police officer was apparently wounded in a shooting incident, however (search for "gunfire"). [11] -Ashley Pomeroy 05:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article, in the intro table, gives the date of conclusion for the storm's duration as Aug. 30. But now it's Aug. 31 and I believe the storm is still extant as a tropical system, a tropical depression now. Doesn't that count, or does it not count anymore once it drops below trop. storm status? Everyking 05:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This "Katrina's effect on the internet subculture" section seems astoundingly, stupidly trivial in this context.

I mistakenly reverted to that version, but I agree. Revert on sight as vandalism. --Titoxd 05:54, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While you guys took care of it here, I followed the editor's other contributions... he's basically making promotional links for sites he worked on (so what else is new, seems to be the major fad lately), so spamming rather than outright vandalism. DreamGuy 05:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

What on Earth is wrong with these people? First the bloggers, then this... tsk tsk. --Titoxd 06:01, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this section came back. but now it is gone. goodbye! Drseudo | Talk! 06:06, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who reinserted it? I've been trying to go through the diffs, and I can't seem to find the culprit. This should now be {{test4}}-level vandalism. --Titoxd 06:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what happened was it was inserted one place, removed, it was put another place, you accidentally put it back in the original place (making two copies), then it was removed in one but not the other.... DreamGuy 06:12, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dang... now I've got to {{test4}} myself. Oy veh. --Titoxd 06:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was watching the news feed last night (29th night-30th morning) and they were reporting that the twin spans had been "destroyed". They didn't have pictures, but they kept repeating that word. Anyone have more info? --Gryn 05:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All you need to know is: use the Crescent City Connection to evacuate New Orleans.

CNN's website has video of the damage to the spans over Lake Ponchartrain. Go to pretty much any article there right now and there will be links to the myriad video clips. Mike H (Talking is hot) 06:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The casualty chart is for confirmed death only. Please do not include prediction or speculated figure. No doubt, this will make it way off the final figure, but it's the only way to update the chart consistently and to keep the figure verifiable. --Vsion 07:00, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Working largely from one NYT article, I cobbled together the framework of a Response section, which I expect will quickly expand. I'm looking to articles like 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for inspiration, here. I'm not expecting this article to perfectly rival that one, but the US impact is going to be considerable and I wouldn't be surprised if this article also spawns sub-articles. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

America the land of the dead and the stupids! Worse than the Balkan or the 3rd world. People drowning by the hundred and shooting eatch other in the streets, even though they have been told many days ago to flee because the damn hurrican is coming head on at 160mph. Looting, racial riots, army in the streets, total disarray, all so ridiculous! UBL must be laughing off his arse in his cave, the yankee terrorize themselves even if no turban is in sight. So despicable.

How will America respond when something really bad happens, like LA and SF flattened by M9.5 earthquake or Red China amphibious landing on the West Coast? Will you have an all-union civil war instead of responding like the most powerful nation in the world? If the USSR in 1941 was like USA is in 2005, Hitler would have turned Alaska into Thule by now!

Just look at Fidel Castro's Cuba, they have none or few casaulties for whirlwinds because they are prepared, organized and a coherent society. In the USA, all the people are selfish by definition (capitalism) and in the end everybody suffers because of animosity.

is there a reason why this artilce is atrackting so many trolls?Geni 10:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]