Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 7

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Media

is [http://infowars.net/articles/july2006/260706FEMA.htm this] included in the article? --Striver 15:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

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

TCR updated

There were several updates in the TCR. [1]

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

CrazyC83 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A Comment

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

Moved from article

I've moved this section from the article here, so we can discuss it:

Reconstruction

The cities of Gulfport, Biloxi, Pascagoula, and Bay St. Loius in South Mississippi have many plans for the reconstrucion after Katrina. Several of them include a redisingend port area for Gulfport, which has shopping centers, an aquarium and a hidden port area.

The section does not have references; however, it is something that eventually should be added to the article, as well as information about the reconstruction in Louisiana and the rest of Mississippi. Do we have anything more to expand it with? Tito xd^(?!?) 01:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Racial bias

The article seems racist. It fails to adequately cover the prominent efforts by the Mayor or New Orleans, the plight of the poor and the black, and the trauma of evacuees in the Louisina Superdome and elsewhere. These were high profile events that drew international attention to poverty and third-world conditions in America and the social neglect of the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.93.191 (talk • contribs) 15:34, August 23, 2006

I disagree. --Golbez 16:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the anon's very serious accusations of racist bias. I responded on his/her talk page, and pointed him/her to Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. szyslak (t, c, e) 17:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Also relevant is Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina#Race_and_class_issues. But I don't entirely disagree with the anon's comments. I think one problem is that some of the later sections seem overly disconnected from each other. Why does the Criticism of government response come four sections after the Government response section, for instance? (It instead follows a section titled "Analysis of New Orleans levee failures".) Also, at present the words "race", "racism", "black" and "poverty" each appear just once in the article, all sequestered in the Criticism of government response section. Racism and poverty have been widely seen as relevant to the topics of other sections, but you might not think so from our article. -- Avenue 13:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. By reading the main article, a reader would not realize there had been any racial bias in the aftermath, or the newsworthy story that the hurricane opened a long delayed public dialogue on race in the U.S. The omission seems almost intentional. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias Huangdi 17:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Intro

24-Aug-2006: I have added the basic missing details to the introductory overview paragraphs, such as: (hello?) the dates of landfall, windspeed, and pressure. Also, there were several states affected. The intro was very flowery about "bigger, longer, stronger" but didn't even mention the dates that Katrina occurred, within the first 10-20 sentences. The intro has been expanded, also:

to summarize the article, per Wikipedia guideline for intro as a standalone text;
to balance widespread, overnight coastal devastation against New Orleans slow flooding;
to mention wildlife habitats & barrier islands from article;
to list all other states affected.

In general, the Hurricane Katrina article has lacked crucial correct information, such as reporting, all year, a "10-foot" storm surge in Alabama, when NOAA confirmed in September, the water was over 20 feet deep. The subheaders ("Impact"/"Strength"/etc.) help focus to realize the numerous missing details, such as dates/times, windspeed, and other cities, in the intro paragraphs. -Wikid77 01:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That all doesn't need to be in the intro. You yourself it was missing from the article, so put it in the article. The intro is bloated as is. Also, I challenge you to find another remotely good article on Wikipedia which has ugly subheaders like that in the intro. --Golbez 04:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

25-Aug-2006: OK, I see that Wiki admin Golbez has worded several hurricane articles in a specific style, "3rd this 5th that" which limits changing the hurricane-article intro to become the typical event format: "who/what/when/where/why and how." Specific event details must be put into sub-sections, or else, changes will be reverted by the admin. -Wikid77 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is any disagreement about placing details in sections and subsections. However, the intro is not the place for it. Personally, I find the intro longer than an average article should. Balanced with the fact that Katrina completely transcends the meteorological/damage assessment article into so many socieconomic and political arenas, I can accept the intro at its present length. I didn't comb through what Wikid77 was adding to the intro, but if it's missing from the article, it should be added to an appropriate section of the article. But the key part is details, as you said, which by definition are not summary information that belongs in the intro.

Also, to make a point of distinction that Golbez was acting just as any other editor would. He is not flexing some sort of "admin muscle" to override your edits. Any editor (such as myself) could have made those changes, based on WP:LEAD; it just happened to be by someone who also wears an admin hat. Thank you for your contributions. There is no complaint about that, just a matter of organization. —Twigboy 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there was once where I used the admin rollback; that was a mistake. --Golbez 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I am not above the law. If I break 3RR, by all means, file a report and get me blocked. I however don't care if that happens, so I'm not keeping track. That's your job. --Golbez 00:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

FLAT REVERTS

26-Aug-2006: At 9am EDT, user Chacor went crazy and did a flat revert back many versions, erasing the updates from several different users. I asked him to discuss which of the many updates he wanted altered, but he did a second FLAT REVERT of all changes made by several people. I am attempting to add some particular improvements, but I don't know all the improvements he erased (I say "vandalized") by blanking the changes several other people made. I think if a person cannot tolerate changes, while in progress, they should defer judgment to other people willing to read and review sources. Or, does User:Chacor think he owns the Hurricane Katrina article? Probably. -Wikid77 13:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV. Your contentious edits have been reverted by more than one user. Your accusations severely violate Wikipedia policy and can get you blocked. I will soon be filing an RFC when I have finished gathering the needed information. An FA is not expected to undergo major changes. Your edit summaries have been disruptive. There is clear consensus AGAINST your edits. – Ch acor 13:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, putting that it was the largest hurricane to ever cross Mississippi is vital, neutral information that must be stated in the first graf. How'd I miss that? I can't help but feel.. slightly responsible for how this has spiralled out of control, what with my original revert, but reverting was better than not. I think Wikid's desires might have been honorable, but it quickly turned in to "NPOV means that for every mention of New Orleans, we have to mention somewhere else, no matter the reason". My initial complaint was only with the format of his new additions, though yes, a later look told me the content wasn't that good either. --Golbez 13:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

27-Aug-2006: OK, I realize I tried to make the article neutral, too quickly. Since Katrina went 45 miles east of New Orleans (only minor winds), travelling with hurricane-force winds mainly in Mississippi, I thought more should be added about Mississippi. However, now I see that some people don't think Katrina was mainly a Mississippi hurricane, with storm flooding elsewhere. Water was much deeper in Bayou La Batre, Alabama than NOLA, but that's not in the article. Sorry that I shocked people, but the eye path went over peninsulas 45 miles from New Orleans (even east of Chalmette), then spent all day in Mississippi. Perhaps, multiple angles could be stated: more died in Louisiana, but hurricane-force Katrina travelled further/longer in Mississippi (all of it, all day). There were dry hotels in New Orleans; there were no hotels left across 100 miles of Mississippi coastline. That's what I consider neutral POV. Sorry for the shock. -Wikid77 19:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No, we do want more information about Mississippi... we just want it in the Mississippi section and the subarticle, not in the introduction. The exact wording of the introduction has been discussed endlessly, and the version that is currently there is a compromise. Tito xd^(?!?) 19:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

One comment is that there were no content additions by anyone except Wikid77 recently, the other editors were either rephrasing or reverting his additions. The addition of Bon Secour, Alabama to the lead violates NPOV. The reason? Bon Secour has a population of <500. There are many towns and cities along the Gulf Coast which got affected by Katrina, which are bigger than that. To include one minor town in the lead is inappropriate. Katrina is important to BS but BS is not important to the story of Katrina.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Apologies to Golbez et al. there I misread the history.--Nilfanion (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

27-Aug-2006: Again, sorry for the shock: "Bon Secour" also means the Bon Secour refuge (+Fort Morgan +shoreline) and is a hurricane "code word" for the "first town on east Mobile Bay": saying "Bayou La Batre to Bon Secour" is like "A to Z" across the entrance to Mobile Bay (meaning the entire Bay entrance, comprende?). Mobile is way north of entrance. Hurricane reports don't focus on biggest city name: not neutral. Also, I wanted to add much more, when dozens of my changes were reverted. Also, consider:

impact to Gulf Shores and other Gulf towns, etc.;
Florida panhandle storm surge was over 6 feet, not "2 feet" and get some town names;
expand: Georgia got 20 tornados, Alabama 11, Mississippi 11, and none in Louisiana;
outer bands caused wind damage and possibly many of those 42 tornado storms;
explain Katrina restructured at landfall, with a second eye-wall & wind speed;

(I don't mean state a "miracle" spared 10,000 in New Orleans, but explain new eye-wall.);

Tennessee experienced Tropical Storm Katrina, no longer hurricane-force.

I suspect that, when others see more broad, neutral information, more could be revealed by other people. Again, I apologize for the shock: regional terms for "hurricane-speak" (an article?) can be confusing to others, that's why I ask for discussion, not reverts. -Wikid77 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, add them, just not to the lead section, which needs to be a general summary about all of Katrina, not just New Orleans or Mississippi. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

And also, please provide the source. There is a lot of information available on Katrina. If it is based on operational NHC data it is wrong (if the TCR contradicts it), without a source we cannot assess its validity.--Nilfanion (talk) 20:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Chacor has the right idea. Additional info can be useful but FAs don't need wholesale changes, which is why this whole episode has been a complete farce. Pobbie Rarr 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

FAs have no special status as far as content or editing goes. The rollbacks may have been the right thing to do, but the FA status is a red herring here: either the changes improved the article (or pointed toward possible improvements) or they didn't. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I know there's no rule against it, but surely it's illogical that an FA sees major changes as it already qualifies as an excellent article. Like I said, one can always strive to improve an already-excellent article, but the changes here were a bit OTT. You sometimes get people teying to change the whole structure of FAs when there's really no need. Pobbie Rarr 03:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, all of those details would fit perfectly in Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi, which does need more detail. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree: the path of Katrina across the entire state of Mississippi can be emphasized to document and explain damage to each area, noting that Katrina affected the entire state. -Wikid77 21:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Today, in "Effect...Mississippi" I added many concise facts w/sources: 2-day damage, 30-foot [er, "28"] surge, 55-foot sea waves, damage to Beauvoir and 3rd-floor casino/hotels: Grand Casino of Gulfport, plus the Imperial Palace (IP Hotel and Casino) + Beau Rivage in Biloxi, etc. -Wikid77 00:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FIXED: Put "28-foot" (not "30") per TCR page 9 ("27.8" feet). -Wikid77 02:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Category 3 or Category 4?

According to the National Weather Service, Katrina had winds of 145 mph when it made landfall. This would make it a category four storm, however, in the article Katrina is referred to as a category three storm after making landfall. Is there data pertaining to the storm that contradict each other? I know it isn't a terribly big deal, because the storm was still devastating either way. In any event I made a few corrections concerning it, and if you feel that this is erroneously done, you may revert back.Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Link? The NHC had it as a Category 3. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:28, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bmx/significant_events/2005/08_29_Katrina/index.php --I was looking up some information about the damage done in Alabama, and here is where I saw that it was a category four storm. (paragraph three)Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

That was operational, judging by the link's name. In post-analysis, the NHC dropped it from Cat 4 to 3. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks for clearing it up for me! Nice userpage, by the way. Wikichange 00:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Hurricanehink (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

27-Aug-2006: Probably Category 4, although NHC post-analysis rated Katrina-Louisiana as "125-mph" Category 3, so far. Since the center went 45 miles east of New Orleans, Katrina was actually a Mississippi hurricane, after passing Louisiana coastlines. Experts predict, that like Hurricane Cindy and Hurricane Andrew, Katrina will be judged higher (Category 4), years hence. Remember Katrina went "ashore" in flooded areas, when forming a second eye-wall that gave different wind speeds. Thank God, Katrina missed New Orleans by 45 miles, allowing more days to evacuate. Areas east of a hurricane, like Mississippi, often get the worst damage, and it is amazing only 300 died in Mississippi, considering 55-foot waves heading ashore. -Wikid77 18:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh, which experts? Katrina was undergoing an eyewall replacement cycle at the time of landfall, and surface measurements confirmed the Category 3 intensity reassignment. Also, the problem in New Orleans was not storm surge, but rather backflooding from Lake Pontchartrain, and the "miss" was what caused the backflood, as the winds were blowing towards the ocean, not from it. Either way, speculating whether the NHC will raise its intensity assessment isn't really the purpose of this talk page... Tito xd^(?!?) 19:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

From article (needs sources)

This paragraph was recently added, it just needs sources. If anyone finds one, feel free to move it back to the NGO response section:

During and after the Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma and Rita, the American Red Cross had opened 2,700 different shelters across 27 different states (and registered 3.4 million overnight stays), some of which were evacuation centers for those displaced by the disaster. A total of 225,000 Red Cross workers (95% of which were non-paid volunteers) were utilized to provide sheltering, caseork, communication and assessment services throughout these three hurricanes. The organization served 34 million meals and 30 million snacks to victims of the disasters and to rescue workers. Red Cross emergency financial assistance was provided to 1.4 million families, which encompassed a total of 4 million people. The Red Cross estimated that it would need USD $2.1 Billion to cover costs associated with the disaster. Hurricane Katrina was the first natural disaster in the United States that the American Red Cross utilized their "Safe and Well" family location website.^{[citation needed]}

Tito xd^(?!?) 16:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph has been updated with proper facts and citation-- thank you. Medicup 15:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-existent references

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

Solved by ref name. – Ch acor 02:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now I'm really confused. I had ref numbers up past 101, now it stops at 101. Tito and/or a Wiki technician, someone explain please? :P – Ch acor 02:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Something is really borked with Cite.php. I'm reporting it to site admins now. Tito xd^(?!?) 02:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Landfall radar loop

I found this animated gif on the NCDC site and uploaded it to Commons, I think it shows the LA landfall really well, any ideas where to put it? --Nilfanion (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

30-Aug-2006: That spinning GIF appears to show another eyewall replacement cycle just before landfall, or is that an illusion? Also, the GIF seems to stop when the heavy rains began in southwest Mississippi. I think images should be labeled "Figures" as in a formal document, then refer to "Figure XX" in "Storm History" as showing eyewall replacement, and refer again in "Mississippi" as rains turn solid dark-orange (heavy) over southwest Mississippi. Perhaps store a dedicated copy, just for this article, with several bullets (in the stored description) about what the GIF illustrates, for multiple points in the article. I clearly see much heavy rain over southwest MS, even though some sources claimed most rain was east of eyewall. Next question (of course): any more GIFs of spin into/through Mississippi?

Also the Katrina wind diagrams are vastly different than rainfall: clearly at landfall, hurricane-force winds became east, then northeast of eyewall. Are there GIFs of wind-speed showing how landfall killed all west-side high winds, leaving winds east then northeast of eyewall? It honestly looks like a Louis-Armstrong Voodoo "miracle" as high winds are "blocked" from going into central New Orleans ("tourist area"), while they hit everywhere else along the circular coast of Louisiana and enter Mississippi unphased. (Did a higher power know that 15,000 people were trapped in central NOLA & stop winds 15 miles outside? Does NOLA seem ungrateful for being spared?). Things to ponder. -Wikid77 05:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop being so sour that more people care about New Orleans than Mississippi. Get over it, and edit neutrally. --Golbez 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

30-Aug-2006: It was other people who said they were upset that a so-called "encyclopedic" project, such as Wikipedia, could be so incorrect and biased against the facts of total devastation in Mississippi (read comments above). I am trying to add detail to reveal the true, balanced account of Katrina impact, and I'm not from Mississippi. Last week, I was not aware how Katrina travelled the entire state of Mississippi, and left 47 counties as disaster areas, but people in Mississippi have reason to expect Wikipedia to contain that information, as the state that experienced longer hurricane-force winds, and higher storm surges, from Katrina than any other state. Few people knew the sea waves off Mississippi were 55-feet high. -Wikid77 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

With the radar imagery it comes from the NWS radar in New Orleans. The reason the GIF stops when it does is that the radar data stops then, due to failure of the NOLA radar maybe? As for illustrative purposes it does its job, showing Katrina approaching the Gulf Coast.--Nilfanion (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

30-Aug-2006: OK, thanks. I had read that other radar hubs are sometimes combined, but the figures must be adjusted for altitude against the curvature of the earth. (Houston FOX News has a giant, tall radar now.) Also, talk of strongest winds in NE quadrant are "urban legend" so I was surprised that Katrina winds were strong on the entire east-side of eye-path, only slowing to just NE quadrant hours later. Thanks. -Wikid77 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

What's this about the right front quadrant having the strongest winds being an urban legend? --Golbez 09:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Hurricane Katrina 1500utc29Aug2005 col4deg.png

Fig. KW10: Katrina Wind speed at 1500 UTC, August 29, 2005

The right side is invariably the strongest quadrant in a northern hemisphere TC. The reason is there the groundspeeds are the circulation speed + the storm speed. On the left side its circulation speed - storm speed. Remember Katrina was a Category 3 hurricane at landfall and was fairly slow moving. Those two factors mean the winds will be very strong everywhere within it.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The included map "Figure KW10" shows the wind-speed at UTC 1500, with hurricane-force winds along the entire east-side of Katrina eye (blue hub), near final landfall. Note the speeds are in knots (mph= kts * 1.1). -Wikid77 19:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Hurricane Katrina 1200utc29Aug col4deg.png

Fig. KW07: Katrina Wind speed at 1200 UTC, August 29, 2005

Katrina Wind Map 07:00

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

Numbered Figures

Technical documents often have "numbered figures" ("Figure B3") to allow reference in the text. I think it would help to have numbered figures, even though it can be tedious, but doesn't need to be in every document, or include every image in an article to be labeled as a figure, as long as figures are not 1/2/3. It has been scientific tradition. -Wikid77 09:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

An effort is made to keep relevant images with the section it illustrates. Frequently with technical documents and textbooks, layout is an issue, and images are frequently separated from the corresponding text. This necessitates numbered figures. The advantage of Wikipedia is that there is no end-of-page constraint. Numbered figures for Wikipedia, however, introduce the problem of incrementing all subsequent figure references manually (both in caption and in the corresponding text). If space is a constraint due to multiple illustrations in a section, that is when one must consider pruning some of the illustrations. Finally, this is not a technical document, nor aspires to it. It should be enjoyable to read, not work. If someone is, however, interested in the fine meteorological details, we provide external links to reports to fill that niche. —Twigboy 21:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, our Manual of Style disagrees with that. Tito xd^(?!?) 23:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of Casualties

THE DEATHS ARE 1930! www.wunderground.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by Transkar (talk • contribs)

You mean this table? http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/usdeadly.asp . That clearly shows 1350 which is less than the Wikipedia, where is the 1930 source?--Nilfanion (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The National Hurricane Center has the direct and indirect death toll listed at 1833, which excludes the 3 fatalities in Ohio and Kentucky found on the table. I am adjusting the "Impact" section of the article to reflect this. Phimu222 16:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The NHC don't update their deaths info unless they update their TCR. When multiple news sources are cited differently, it's fair to use the news sources. – Ch acor 16:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The NHC did update the TCR on 10 August 2006 ([[2]]). The August 10th update was for "... tropical wave history, storm surge, tornadoes, surface observations, fatalities, and damage cost estimates". I would strongly urge that the Ohio and Kentucky fatalities be removed from the table and the 1833 number be used to reflect the change in the NHC's report. Perhaps a new section on deaths indirectly caused by Katrina's remnants could be researched? Respectfully,

Phimu222 18:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

We have researched that, and it's located at Hurricane Katrina death toll by locality. All the refs are there. Tito xd^(?!?) 20:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Changed the deaths to the more accurate 1723. See Hurricane Katrina death toll by locality for specifics. AdamWeeden 21:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I STRONGLY believe that the official NHC casualty figures should be used as per the death toll in the infobox. Counting the deaths by locality I feel is the wrong thing to do because it is an erroneous value (the NHC's TCR is the most recent listing of the number of deaths). Also, because it is such a specific value (1723), people who use the page for info will be misled and think that that is the actual death toll, when in fact it would be far greater. Just use what we have in the locality section and put a footnote there explaining that not all deaths for each locality are known. The death toll listed by the NHC should be the on put in the user box. I plead with the community to back me up on this. I will not revert again until a consensus can be reached. However, I must say that this change creates a bit of paradox for a featured article because right in the intro the death toll is listed as 1836 and then in the infobox it is different. Adam, I am not sure of you are new here, but please discuss such drastic changes before you implement them.The great kawa 23:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If the issue stated above is not addressed (and discussed) by more than Adam and myself within 24 hours of this posting, I will revert as per WP:BOLD. The great kawa 02:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that as a minimum, use the NHC value, if for nothing just for the fact that they are the official source. – Ch acor 02:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

My linked reference is to the Louisiana Dept. of Health. How much more official do you need? I think they would know better than the NHC who only compile data from other sources. AdamWeeden 03:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If we have to I suggest we start a new section and vote on it. That would settle the issue for good.The great kawa 18:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair. AdamWeeden 02:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Landfall times

10-Sep-2006: For almost 2 weeks, in the Storm History section, the 2nd landfall (Buras) time had been incorrectly edited as "11:25pm...August 28" (rather than 6:10am on 29th), edited into the revision of 00:40, 29 August 2006 by "24.24.119.72" (IP address). Too many wind-speed & satellite maps show the eye over Buras, near 6am, to consider the Buras landfall as "11:25pm" (not true), so I cited the TCR with "6:10 a.m." at that point. These times are very solid:

Buras landfall at 6:10 a.m. on August 29, 2005; and,
Pearl River landfall at 10:00 a.m. (or 9:45) on August 29, 2005 (below Pearlington).

Several Katrina hurricane-eye maps also confirm those times. Perhaps hurricane-force winds started in Buras at 11:25pm, and that could be added. -Wikid77 00:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Popular Science - May 2005

Just months before Hurricane Katrina, the May 2005 issue of Popular Science Magazine cover story was entitled EARTH ATTACKS!.

Page 56 had a sidebar on New Orleans. In that article, they state that New Orleans is the city that would sustain the most catastrophic damage in the event of a CAT 5 Hurricane.

Excerpt: It takes Scott Kiser only a split second to name the one city in the US and probably the world that would sustain that most catastrophic damage from a category 5 hurricane. "New Orleans" says Kiser...

-MooreJ 15 September 2006

Global Warming

(Fixed comment)

IM SORRY BUT I DONT KNOW HOW TO POST COMMENTS PROPERLY please include a section on global warming and the effect that had on hurricane katrina!!!

cheers

james

No, because it had no effect. Prove it. --Golbez 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm affraid America would never let it be proven that global warming had any influence. Ofcourse the passing sands of time will proove them wrong time and time again but alas they will never accept it.

Sorry Blonde2max 14:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

So time will prove that which you cannot prove now. That's a hell of an argument. --Golbez 06:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Was the Galveston Hurricane of 1900 due to global warming? Was the Miami Hurricane of 1926 due to global warming? Was the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935 due to global warming? Was the Fort Lauderdale Hurricane of 1947 due to global warming? Was Hazel in 1954 due to global warming? Was Audrey in 1957 (a Category 4 landfall in June!) due to global warming? Was Camille in 1969 due to global warming? I think you get the picture. Shit happens. I doubt we'll see a storm like Katrina have such an impact in the United States for a long time (if ever). Pobbie Rarr 13:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A couple of articles suggesting a link:

These should be incorporated if the article is to be comprehensive and FA worthy.--86.39.7.108 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The general consensus among meteorologists is that no one individual hurricane can be attributed to global warming, only general trends in hurricane formation. It would be incredibly misleading to label Hurricane Katrina as the result of global warming when warming might have had no effect whatsoever. (Katrina might have been equally powerful had it occurred in 1800; we don't know.) That is not to say that global warming does not or will not affect tropical cyclones, only that mention of global warming does not belong in the discussion and analysis of any one particular storm. —Cuivi é nen 05:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Considering that the question (of whether Katrina was the result of Global Warming) comes up repeatedly, the Katrina article should contain a short review of the issue, including one or more of the above links, perhaps supplemented by more hard-science references.--RattBoy 11:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, again, that there is no way to tell if an individual hurricane is affected by global warming or not. Tropical cyclone includes (or should include) that discussion. Tito xd^(?!?) 16:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Danziger?

The article states a "Danziger incident". What exactly was this incident, somebody should explain it for people like me who do not know about it. Obi-w00t 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[3] there you go --SGGH 15:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Should this not be included in the main article, or another article created to make sure the information is present on Wikipedia?Obi-w00t 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Footnote Help

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

Clean-up and reconstruction operations?

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

Dates lacking years

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

Reconstruction

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)

Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 7

Media

vandalism

TCR updated

A Comment

Moved from article

Reconstruction

Racial bias

Intro

FLAT REVERTS

Category 3 or Category 4?

From article (needs sources)

Non-existent references

Landfall radar loop

Katrina Wind Map 07:00

Numbered Figures

Number of Casualties

See also / External Links

Landfall times

Popular Science - May 2005

Archives

Global Warming

Danziger?

Footnote Help

Clean-up and reconstruction operations?

Dates lacking years

Reconstruction