Jump to content

Talk:Criticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeCriticism of the government response to Hurricane Katrina was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 12, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed

Celebrity criticism - who cares what celebrities have to say?

[edit]

This section seems entirely pointless, who cares what some musicians have to say about Katrina? I'm going to boldly remove it. Bonewah (talk) 13:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a lot of people care since this section is well-sourced to reliable sources, and many editors worked on those sections. This is Wikipedia, not "Bonewahpedia, the encyclopedia of stuff that interests Bonewah". bd2412 T 14:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Spare me the personal attacks, well sourced doesnt answer the relevance question. Why should anyone care about musicians and actors views on Katrina? Are they experts? Were they involved in the response? Were they actually there? This gets to the heart of why wp:crit says "Just as in most cases the existence of an article seems to inherently promote its topic, "Criticism of ...." articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view." The only reason these people are being quoted at all is because they are critical of the government response and the title of the article contains "Criticism of government response", exactly what wp:crit warns us to avoid. Bonewah (talk) 15:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you reverted my dead link tags that I added. Bonewah (talk) 15:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kanye West's criticism for example, coming as it did during a telethon for hurricane relief, is particularly on point as the telethon itself was part of the response. I restored the one dead link tag that I could find. bd2412 T 15:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats an unbelievable stretch. For starters, it wasent part of the government response. Further, as I stated earlier, there is no indication that these people's opinions are in any way informed or relevant. The only reason these people are being quoted at all is because this article is a "criticism of.." article (and exactly why criticisms of articles are generally considered POV forks), Why not quote a supermodel? Or the Dalai Lama? Or me, for that matter? If they do not have an informed or relevant opinion on the matter, then there is no reason to quote them at all. Bonewah (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Who cares" is not a valid reason to remove cited information from the encyclopedia. I don't care about Pokemon, but you don't see me trying to delete all the Pokemon articles because somebody cares about them. That, for example, Kanye West got on live national television, during an historic broadcast with a large audience, and made specific criticisms of the government is (a) verifiable and reliably sourced, and (b) highly notable in the context of this article. It it not POV to report, if our reporting of it does not endorse the view (otherwise we'd never be able to report on any criticism of any political figure). If the Dalai Lama leveled a criticism, that should be included also given his place on the world stage. If you leveled a criticism, it probably wouldn't make the news or influence anybody because you don't have the bully pulpit of celebrity. Conversely, I might add, if there are instances of celebrities making the news for praising the government's response to Katrina, those should be included as well. bd2412 T 18:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why are these criticisms highly notable? Just because someone is a celebrity? Just because they appeared on television? Why not cite every TV anchorman and pundit on television? Again, these people have no special knowlage of the situation, they are only being quoted because they are critical. Look at this way, if the article were entitled government response to Hurricane Katrina, and criticisms were simply included throughout (which it should be), then these celebrity responses wouldn't fly at all. Bonewah (talk) 18:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest then that your issue is with the existence of the article at all. Not every TV anchor or pundit will get national news coverage over a criticism they make, and frankly there are bound to be some celebrities who are no worse informed than critical politicians. As I said, if there is a contrasting view, a celebrity who drew attention for praising the government response, that would be equally appropriate to include. bd2412 T 19:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with the article existing, although moving it to government response to Hurricane Katrina and reworking it would be consistent with wp:crit. I hasten to add that even after that proposed move, the article would still contain a lot of criticism because criticism of the govt response is such a huge part of the issue. I just cant imagine an article about Katrina that doesn't document the systemic failure of the government response, but thats exactly what we should do, document the government's failure along with its other actions. Criticisms of articles are not only POV forks but also have the effect of removing legitimate criticisms from parent articles.
On the subject of uniformed views, it really doesnt matter if the view is critical or favorable, if it comes from an uninformed, uninvolved person, its irrelevant. This is what keeps articles from being a mishmash of "person X thinks this" and "Person Y thinks that", you need to have some reasonable connection to the subject at hand, not just an opinion. Bonewah (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, I am going to remove the celebrity criticism section as irrelevant. If a celebrity has something to add to our understanding of this subject it has a place here, otherwise, we are just listing people who are critical without regard to importance. Bonewah (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just read over the "celebrity" commentary section, and it was one of the biggest piles of non-notable, POV-pushing garbage I've seen to date on Wikipedia, and that's saying something. When educated people who have STUDIED the problems that occurred during Katrina, after the fact, have some notable commentary on the government response, their quotes should be added to this article. But there is no justifiable reason to include the opinion of every hip hop group that wrote a song about the disaster in the days after, based on what they'd seen in a few pictures. ViperNerd (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't agree with the words used (see WP:INSULT), see July 6th content of other editor altered, by Special:Contributions/Bonewah: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina&diff=438117591&oldid=438106321 99.181.128.190 (talk) 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brown and partisan politics

[edit]

This section is highly dubious

In January 2007, the fired FEMA director Michael D. Brown charged that partisan politics had played a role in the White House's decision to federalize emergency response to the disaster in Louisiana only rather than along the entire affected Gulf Coast region, which Brown said he had advocated. "Unbeknownst to me, certain people in the White House were thinking, 'We had to federalize Louisiana because she's a white, female Democratic governor, and we have a chance to rub her nose in it,'" Brown said, speaking before a group of graduate students at the Metropolitan College of New York on January 19, 2007. "'We can't do it to Haley [Mississippi governor Haley Barbour] because Haley's a white male Republican governor. And we can't do a thing to him. So we're just gonna federalize Louisiana.'" The White House fervently denied Brown's charges through a spokeswoman and Brown's comments have never been substantiated.[21]

For starters the only citation for this is a dead link. And on top of that, the paragraph even says that Brown's comment has never been substantiated. Bonewah (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link fixed. I'm not sure what you mean "Brown's comment has never been substantiated" - are you doubting that he actually said that, or do expect someone else from the Bush administration to come forward on this? bd2412 T 18:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only that the paragraph itself says that his claims have never been substantiated, which is like saying "were reporting hearsay". How could it even be substantiated anyway, hes claiming to know what people in the white house were thinking? Is this guy psychic? Bonewah (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the paragraph says the reports have not been substantiated. However, there's almost no one more central to the government's response than Michael Brown, so his clearly expressed sense of what is going on is worth noting with that caveat. bd2412 T 18:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that his views on the matter are relevant, I just think it could be written better. Bonewah (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to clarifying that this is speculation on Brown's part. bd2412 T 19:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Brown

[edit]

This citation for this section does not support the statement at all:

Later, Michael Brown admitted that he had virtually no experience in emergency management when he was appointed to the position by President Bush two years prior to Katrina.

The citation only shows that certain media members accused Michael Brown of having no experience. Brown himself continues to refute that charge to this day. [1] Wrecklass (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/katrina-ten-years-later-michael-brown-121782?o=2

racism

[edit]

if the black dead were equal in percentage to that of the overall population, then that means the storm wasn't racist, but kill proportionally to the population. right? 67.176.160.47 (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Missing" Letter

[edit]

I've reverted again Sam Donald's removal of cited content. I'd like to explain why. Quite simply you cannot removed reliable sourced and cited content from an article, and replace it with contradictory claims that are not sourced or cited. Saying "it was on the internet, but someone's removed it" is not an adequate. Wikipedia's readers need a way of verifying the facts, and this doesn't allow for that.

Please do not alter the article again until this can be cited. Can another source be found? Thanks. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea of how to answer this. I did, but it appeared on another thread.

I did cite the fact that two letters were written, and it was deleted. http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=kat_71 plainly indicates there were two letters d/t two different dates.

Your comments are untrue. Sam Donald (talk)Don —Preceding undated comment added 17:57, 2 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I removed the content mostly because you said yourself in your edit that media was not reporting it and the letter was not available. So your own words make it clear that the content is not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia only summarises what has already been said in reliable sources. If you have neither a copy of the letter, nor any reliable reporting of it, then I am afraid Wikipeida is not the place for discussing it. I am unfamiliar with "History Commons", but it appears to be a collaborative user generated website (like Wikipedia is). This makes it an unreliable source and an unsuitable cite.
Apart from this, these claims are no reason to remove other cited and sourced content that do come from reliable sources. If the facts are disputed then Wikipedia should reflect that. But both sides of the story must be cited adequately.
The PDF you refer to (if I'm following the correct link, you do not explain what or where), has not been "removed from the internet", it is simply sitting on a some guys personal website that will not permit external linking to it. As such, it is most definitely not a reliable source, nor will Wikipedia permit original research on its contents.
Please revert your last edit until the matter can be discussed properly and do not edit war over this. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Sam Donald continues to refuse to discuss his edits to the page, I have again flagged the problematic content. Would he please come to this discussion page and explain what they are trying to say? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 20:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And now I've reverted the change. If a source can be found for these claims then they could be re-added. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential role

[edit]

My comments in []s:

Many claimed [who? when?] that on the morning of August 28, the president telephoned Mayor Nagin to "plead" for a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, and further claimed that Nagin and Gov. Blanco decided to evacuate the city only in response to that request. These claims were never substantiated with any recordings, however Blanco did tell reporters the President had called and spoken with her (but not Nagin) before the press conference [which press conference?; citation needed].

Perhaps the press conference is obvious from context, but I do not readily find it. Fotoguzzi (talk) 03:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I have tagged the content. It consists of an unattributed and uncited claim, followed by an uncited questioning of the claims, followed by another unsourced fact. If nothing shows up to cite any of it it should all be removed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editing error in Presidential role

[edit]

The last paragraph in this Presidential role section has apparently been damaged by an editing error. It currently begins, "Address]]. In that speech, Bush did not mention..." Juniperpaul (talk) 07:23, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Investigation of State of Emergency declaration section weidness

[edit]

There's a little weirdness in the section titled, "Investigation of State of Emergency declaration," so I want to explain my edits here.

Firstly, the parenthetical "(In fact, the declaration did not include any of Louisiana's coastal parishes; rather, they were included in the declarations for Mississippi[27] and Alabama.[28])" seems wrong. As far as I can tell, there are no Louisiana parishes included in either of the linked declarations. I suspect this should have been, "rather, they were included in the declaration for August 29th."

Secondly, the section presents a timeline of a governor's letter proceeding a declaration on the 27th. However, the linked letter was dated the 28th. Assuming the section is correct in that the letter was publicized in reaction to the hearing, I suppose the more modest edit is to just point out without comment that the letter had that date.

I came to this page to learn more about the declarations, and I found the section not really agreeing with the things it was linking to, so I want to improve it. I'm trying to keep the edits modest to avoid the No original research rule, so I hope this is acceptable. Crcarlin (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 16 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Systemic critique from an insider found. Suitable?

[edit]

Hello. I am VERY new to Wikipedia, and while looking into an unrelated topic I found this postmortem analysis of the apparent interconnected dysfunctions among government, private sector and even individuals from a person inside FEMA during the Katrina period. I do not know if it meets criteria for inclusion, and would prefer to let an experienced editor judge. Sure hope I'm doing this right.

Augustson, Alan (2008-08-31). Bernstein, Jonathan (ed.). "Katrina: Three Years Later, The Lessons We Haven't Learned". Crisis Manager. Bernstein Crisis Management. ISSN 1528-3836. Retrieved 2017-06-03. CyndiMcIncheese (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_the_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=1211213648"