Jump to content

Talk:Hurricane Katrina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by AySz88 (talk | contribs) at 05:51, 2 January 2006 (→International Response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:AIDnom Template:Talkheaderlong Template:Todo priority Template:Hurricane

As a courtesy to other users, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark any unsigned comments.
Archives: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11.


Katrina and the waves

Has anyone heard of the band, Katrina and the waves? They did the song, walking on sun-shine. Before it turned into such a desister, my co-worker came up with this headline. Katrina and the Waves hit the florida coast line. Their is no walking on sunshine. It was funny before Katrina hit, but we had no idea that it would be any worse than any other storm.

People have made plenty of Katrina and the Waves references with regard to this hurricane; it's not a new idea. *Dan T.* 17:11, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

this article is beautiful

Linking to Emergency and Disaster Management

This comment is not strictly relating to Hurricane Katrina, but by posting here I hope to find likeminded people. The well established academic fields of Disaster management and Emergency management are not (what I have seen) mentioned in this text. In addition, their articles are small and often incoherent. I am about to take on the task of improving this. It is however a huge task. I will try to set up a wikiproject for it. Post on my talkpage if you are interested. --Drdan 10:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bush image

Despite the seriousness of this image of Bush in the article, I find its alternate meaning hilarious! The Wookieepedian 06:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be surprised if someone inserted it as a private joke although the image is the only one available without copyright that I can find (doing a quick search) of Bush's reponse to Katrina. - Cuivienen 04:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this should be removed... in a way, its a violation of NPOV, as this image has been used countless times on left-wing websites and blogs denouncing the President. Even though the capiton is being mis-interperted, because of the way this image is used in "the wild", it should be removed. Mr. Brown 05:14, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it matters very much, the alternate meaning isn't very obvious (I didn't notice until I looked for about a minute). --AySz88^-^ 16:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

for some reason I can't seem to add anything to most articles

http://www.wmcstations.com/global/story.asp?s=4227761&ClientType=Printable

--grazon 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In the external links section of the article regarding the violence occurring shortly after hurricane Katrina there is only a single link, which leads to www.cofcc.org. The site no longer carries data on hurricane katrina and is more of a sounding board for white suprmacists than a legitimate news outlet. I'm not sure why it was included in the article.

Ricky -12/11/05

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/12/12/103853.shtml

Of the 883 bodies processed so far by medical examiners at St. Gabriel, 562 have been identified by race. Slightly less than half that number - 48 percent - are African-American. Forty-one percent are white, 8 percent unknown and 2 percent Hispanic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.188.97.92 (talk • contribs) 13:19, December 13, 2005 (UTC)

Section editing

I don't know how you did it, but why isn't section editing allowed? --Revolución (talk) 18:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. This page seems too long and many notes should be moved to subpages... CrazyC83 02:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect vandals spot the little [edit]s faster than they see the "edit this page" at the top of the page. Perhaps it's a way to ensure people see the warning comment at the top of the article. --AySz88^-^ 17:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The NOEDITSECTION tag is at the beginning. Good kitty 17:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And it's history. It's too significant of an impediment to legitimate users. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the __NOEDITSECTION__ to the top, as AySz88 says, so that the vandals see the message about vandalising at the top. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If the WP:AID bid passes, it should be removed, though. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death Toll

The section on the death toll ends with a long paragraph ranting that congress, the president, the american public, etc. do not care about the possibility of more dead people still out there. They use phrases like "Soviet-style" to describe the government's supposed efforts to cover up the true number of dead. This section needs to be reworked to remove the biased language.66.244.115.245 01:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you saw might be gone now; the word "Soviet" doesn't appear anywhere in the article, so I can't figure out which paragraph you're pointing out.
Of course: Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs changing, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.
Again, thanks for your input! --AySz88^-^ 17:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy

This article is a good canidate for the new Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy. --Stbalbach 20:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just wait until it is implemented. Titoxd(?!? - did you read this?) 20:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, interesting reading. What do you think for this article? --Stbalbach 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

I have proposed a merge from Hurricane Katrina and technology. That article has relatively little information and I don't think deserves its own article, at least yet. Could be covered under local effects. --DCrazy talk/contrib 21:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. That article is useless on its own. Jdorje 00:35, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina TC Report

Well, it doesn't look like anyone has posted it here, so I will: the NHC is done with the TC report for Katrina. Click here for the pdf and here to download the .doc file. I'm sure many of you already knew about this, but for those who don't, there it is. B1oody8romance7 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Checking in, it appears that some of the conclusions of the report have been worked into the storm history.

However I don't think the comments on the surge were written with enough consideration...be careful how you interpret the information in the report on the surge, and what you put out there for public consumption. Be very, very careful, because of the problem we've had this year with what I call 'supersizing' hurricane intensity by the media and the general (uninformed) public. For one thing, that section in the report on surge information is incomplete and was clearly a little thin. Not all the HWM data is available yet (is there anyone with an in at the USGS that can get hold of it?...parts of their web site, including all the Katrina impact studies, aren't up, either). I checked the FEMA results for the MS Gulf Coast (LA isn't in yet) against the MS HES maps that encapsulate the SLOSH model results, and guess what. The surge was Cat 3 (this is important to understand: to go between the SLOSH results and the HWM and surge inundation, you have to translate using the elevation info; the category level of the surge is not a fixed number of feet, but varies from location to location based on the area's topology). Statistically speaking the areas that were Cat 4 or 5 are so small as to be almost insignificant (I'm only talking big picture, not saying they were not important, from other perspectives). So it is probably going to prove incorrect to overemphasize the Cat 4 / Cat 5 nature of the surge. The highest surge number, once wave action and tide are removed, will probably be around 25 ft or a little less. Katrina came in just a couple hours after high tide, which would be around 2 feet in most places, occured along the entire MS coast; this can be checked by looking at the 2005 tide tables. There is only one very small area of coastline that possibly, barely, reached Cat 5 levels, and only some very small areas of coastline with Cat 4 level of surge. I have the detailed info but want to wait on putting any of it out there until I see something more authoritative to go on than the FEMA results (which were, however, likely based on USGS info).

Yes, by looking at the MS Gulf Coast, we all know now what a solid Cat 3 can do, especially a large one that affects a very large area. Mkieper 17:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Tropical Cyclone Report agrees that it was a Cat 3 surge enhanced by Cat 5 wave action - is this unclear in the storm history? --AySz88^-^ 17:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...I think it is a little ambiguous and could read as if the majority of the surge was Cat 4 / 5. You may want to wait until some more data is in, but it probably wants clarification at some point as to whether there was any Cat 4 /5 surge, how significant it was, where it was. Actually the thing I think is remarkable about the surge is the tremendous scope of the Cat 3 surge, and how far east the Cat 3 surge went (it ran out, finally, inland just to the NE of the end of Pascagoula city limits, a few miles from the AL border). That's extraordinary. Because I didn't see much Cat 4 / 5 surge beyond small areas of the immediate coastline, I don't think there was a whole lot of 'enhancement' of the surge going on, overall (I think NHC was just keeping the options open until more data comes in), although I agree the wave action was clearly enhanced. The highest surge was clearly to the east of the eye at landfall so the key to that will be the analysis of the MS coast. However, the LA analysis ought to be very interesting, especially quantifying the effects of MR GO in enhancing the surge to St Bernard Parish and the Industrial Canal, and whether the Industrial Canal walls were overtopped (it is already clear that the wall failures at 17th Street Canal were due to poor construction). I also suspect very high waves over the ring levees from Venice to Buras, and want to know how much that contributed to the flooding of the ring levees, as opposed to the surge. Mkieper 18:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

As per the request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection: Semi-protection is not yet enabled in the software. I do not believe that the vandalism here is out of the ordinary nor persistent enough to warrant protection. Looking at the history, there are quite a few useful edits being done, and those would be lost if it were protected. I would suggest blocking individual IPs for vandalism instead. enochlau (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact you said "IPs" and not vandals proves my point that registration should be required. But nobody wants to listen to me, they just make up reasons why having anonymous IP users is somehow "beneficial". I know this may not be the right place for this, I just had to get it off my chest. --Revolución (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, forcing registration would actually give more privacy and anonymity to the vandals, unless more people get to see IPs of registered users. It's probably better for the vandals to not realize that registrating provides more anonymity. --AySz88^-^ 03:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. NOEDITSECTION, etc

I've removed a misstatement of the blocking policy, and also the NOEDITSECTION directive that, it seems to me, can only be specifically and singularly intended to thwart legitimate attempts to edit an article. Vandals don't care, they'll just load the whole thing and blank it, or add some crap. The rest of us do value the ability to edit a section, and I don't see any good reason to penalize editors.

For a fairly accurate picture of the actual state of vandalism on this and other articles see this URL:

Specifically: here

This article's period of highest vandalism started soon after the NOEDITSECTION directive was added. Nobody has ever given me a remotely sensible explanation of why NOEDITSECTION would deter vandalism. It obviously doesn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 04:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The NOEDITSECTION was supposed to ensure that editors and potential vandals would see the notice at the top, which would in turn prevent vandalism. The small [edit] buttons are also potentially more visible than the large button at the top to new users in general. (Personally, I don't care which way it stays, the tradeoff is about equal to me.) --AySz88^-^ 04:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The warning not to vandalise has increased the vandalism. It gives vandals attention, which vandals seek, naturally. It's like putting up a sign "please do not paint graffiti here". It is a well proven fact, NY City or LA don't use anti-vandal notification signs, they don't work, if anything such signs degrade the neighborhood further, giving it an official stamp of "this place is crime ridden" which attracts criminals. --Stbalbach 05:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - cleanup

This article is in serious need of a rewrite or massive cleanup. It's become a cruft accumulator of every POV on the Hurricane including those deprecated by the facts. -- Jbamb 23:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed wholeheartedly. We should move everything not related to the storm history, direct impact and other historical notes to separate pages. They are all definitely important and nothing should be deleted, but this was such a big story that it requires even more subpages. CrazyC83 17:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to leave summaries behind (Wikipedia:Summary style)... --AySz88^-^ 17:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

new inline citation

check this out, might make our lives slightly easier. in particular with citing sources. This will probally be extremly useful in organizing the numerious references in this article.--ZeWrestler Talk 20:14, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved here from WP:IDRIVE

While this article was listed on WP:IDRIVE the following comments were made:

Comments
Yes, there's something on the talk page there about using the new <ref> and <reference> tags. --AySz88^-^ 18:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations by section

I've sent out a lot of recommended page moves, mainly to their local effects relative to the area, to condense this page... CrazyC83 18:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe leave a sentence-or-two mention behind as per Wikipedia:Summary style? --AySz88^-^ 19:47, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The intro should be much shorter. Storm history, since much of it is in Meteorological history of Hurricane Katrina. I vote yes for all of the merges. Hurricanehink 21:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just debating about the "Tornadoes" section - should it be listed with all the other local impact, or as part of a new article, Hurricane Katrina tornado outbreak? CrazyC83 00:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe both in the local impacts and as a section in Meteorological history.... --AySz88^-^ 03:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


International Response

This section ends mid sentance (with a semicolon). Definitely needs to be reworked --SeanMcG 05:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph seems to have been made screwy through this edit. --AySz88^-^ 05:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=33564682"