Jump to content

Talk:Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BigWilliam (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 7 September 2005 (→Reason for the continued existence of Lake Pontchartrain). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Talkheaderlong

Top

I'd just like to congratulate everyone here for doing a great job. 149.99.164.17 00:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames?

Since Wikipedia is a neutral resorce, I don't really know if nicknames are pertinent. However, as George Bush has already coined the term "American tsunami" (even though it was not a tsunami but a violent storm), and I have heard people on the news refer to it as "A modern day Atlantis". Does anyone know if New Orleans is going to be abandoned, or renovated?--Importancenn 10:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: The reason I ask is because of the problems mentioned in Extraordinary Problems, Difficult Solutions, as the problems discussed seem VERY costly and in the governments eyes may not be worth the trouble.--Importancenn 10:36, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think people who want to see New Orleans rebuilt are going to have to fight for it. --noösfractal 10:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prisons

Anyone have an idea of what happened to the prisons? I hear conflicting reports saying that the prisons were evacuated beforehand or that some were left out and the prisoners escaped...I think it would be really significant if hundreds of additional felons were now wandering around in general population. I also haven't found out if there was any resolution to the prison hostage standoff. Jarwulf 03:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Time to invest in the stock market! Newflash! The whole world is becoming more chaotic! --Cyberman 01:40, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Just wondering why there's a reference to a fictional character (i.e. Ignatius J. Reilly from A_Confederacy_of_Dunces) in a serious article. Update: the reference has been removed.

I'm just wondering why this article is necessary. With all due respect will we now have articles for the effect of Katrina on Biloxi, on Gulfport, on the Casino industry, etc.? Can't some of this fit in the main Hurricane Katrina article, in the Hurricane article, etc.?

  • I agree, but because of a different reason. Content like this is liable to be reintroduced at the article at any time by editors who haven't been following it, so maybe it is a good idea to consolidate content for now. --Titoxd 23:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If enough content accumulates to fill an article on Katrina's effect on any of those other topics, why not have separate articles? That said, when the dust settles maybe it may be worthwhile to merge some or all of this content back into the main article. --Bletch 00:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bear in mind that New Orleans is now flooded, and remained so for weeks, if not months. The damage is continuing as rescue effort is underway. Many stories are happening as we try to keep up with them. I suspect that this article alone won't be enough to describe the effect on New Orleans. --Vsion 00:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with that! This is going to go on for months. I separated the section on New Orleans hurricane studies back into a separate page because it's independent of Katrina. It's linked from the NO page, also.--Kbk 03:34, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. We're seeing essentially the temporary removal of New Orleans from the map.. Certainly warrants its own page. — ceejayoz ★ .com 05:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given what's happened in the last 10 hours with additional levee failute and a statement by Mayor Nagin that the city would likely be uninhabitable for months, I've changed my mind. This does seem now to warrant a separate article. Though I still caution against article bloat with regard to Hurricane Katrina.24.60.184.196 13:26, 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 now failed, major flooding is expected. Zzxcnet 01:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

There's an awful lot of quotes here. Should they go on Wikiquote instead?

If not, I'd like to see the one by the Mayor likening this to the 26 December 2004 tsunami, or else see it there.

--zandperl 04:24, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, the most widely-quoted tsunami comparison at least on national TV - "This is our tsunami" - is from the mayor of Biloxi, Mississippi... Samaritan 05:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Better add chunks of Nagin's "Get they ass on a plane" speech.

Timelessness, and WWL disambiguation

Let's try to write timely material in a timeless way, that can survive future edits. Rather than write "Eighty percent of New Orleans is estimated to be underwater", we should try to write that "As of August X, eighty percent..." or "On August X, Mayor Nagin estimated that eighty percent..."

Also: WWL is a disambiguation page, WWL-TV is the TV station, and WWL (AM) |WWL is the radio station. The TV and radio stations are owned and operated independently of each other, so they should be disambiguated when we know which one is being referenced.

Thoughts and prayers for every Wikipedian from the Gulf Coast of the United States, or with family or friends there... :\ Samaritan 05:47, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Writing timely material correctly is an increasing problem on all of the many pages within the Hurrican Katrina category. Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. 24.60.184.196 12:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BAsed on recent complaints, a new article, Wikipedia:Recentism was created to cover time bias. Any constructive contribs would be appreciated. MPS 17:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Levee vs floodwall

This article claims it was floodwalls that were breached rather than the levees [1]. Pretzelpaws 06:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what's the difference? --Titoxd 06:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think a levee is a huge mound of earth, basically a miles long artificial hill. They don't really "breach" without an earthquake, although water can slosh over the top of them. But a floodwall is just a concrete wall which can fail catastrophically if the pressure is too great. I'm sure they are very different animals to a civil engineer. --noösfractal 07:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From the picture [2] it does indeed seem like it's only a wall that was breached inside the canal and not an actual levee hill--69.197.107.153 14:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Levees most certainly can breach solely due to flooding. Generally an earthen levee will have a concrete liner on the water side to resist erosion due to water flow. If a levee is overtopped, the flow of water can relatively quickly erode the dirt that composes the bulk of the levee. As more water flows, the levee fails more quickly leading to a rapid and catastrophic failure. This happened in a number of places during the MS. river floods several years back. It will be something of a concern for New Orleans now that water is on the interior of the levees - they aren't reinforced against that. The good news is that the water inside of the city isn't moving so erosion will be a much slower process and the levees may be just fine.

The levee system of New Orleans is primarily composed of concrete bases supporting an elevated steel plate. One of the primary problems from the hurricane is that water flooded OVER the levees, and now there is no way to remove it.

Map

I may just be speaking for myself, but I think it would be helpful if there was a map that showed New Orleans and pointed out some major landmarks, so that those of us only slightly familiar with the city could get a sense of where things are.--Westendgirl 00:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there could be some of reference to show where the city is flooded, and where the breaks in the levees are too.


I second the motion for several maps: political, landmark highlight, and showing damage frequencies.

whosear

Section deleted!

Why has the prediction section been truncated? Could someone put back all the previous prediction parts? I don't know how to.

I believe the content is in Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. In a way it's good, so that this article can focus on the Effect of Katrina, as the title suggests. --Vsion 07:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With so many related articles on Hurricane Katrina, I think it's important to keep the articles tightly-focused around their topic. So I agree with the deletion. 24.60.184.196 12:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Status of Universities

Can someone find any info on the status of both Loyola and Tulane Universities. Both of them are in Orleans Parish, and I know some sections of that parish are flooded, but no info has been seen about any structural damages to them. <<Coburn_Pharr>> 12:22, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

10:15am CDT newsconference by LA Governor

There is a plan to move people out of the Superdome via military ships. They will move them to the Astrodome in Texas. Troops will assist in the evacuation. Zzxcnet 15:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Astrodome

From the article: "At 7:50 31 August, it was decided that FEMA — in conjunction with Greyhound, the National Guard, and Houston Metro — would immediately relocate the by-then 22,000–25,000 Superdome refugees across state lines to the Reliant Astrodome in Houston." I'm not sure what time zone 7:50 is in, but it is definitely not right. As I'm writing this, it is 2:11 pm EDT; the two most likely times to be reported in this article would be CDT, which would be 1:11 pm, or UTC, which would be 6:11 pm. And I'm sure that it was announced before this point in time. --timc | Talk 18:13, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that the decision was made at 7:50 AM, and later announced? — ceejayoz ★ .com 20:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Figures

With an estimated eighty percent of the residents evacuated as of August 31, at least 28,000 people are still unaccounted for.

On its face, this doesn't make sense. 80% leaving means 20% staying - about 100,000 people. Assuming the 20,000 people in the Superdome are considered "accounted for", how do we get down from 80,000 to 28,000? Where does the 28,000 number come from? It looks now like 28,000=20% of residents, but that's clearly not the case. john k 06:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check it

Wikipedia:Recentism. This unnecessary article is a perfect example.

  • Hmmm... I wonder if the above unsigned comment, which came from an anonymous IP address, was from one of the two editors who have taken it upon themselves, within just the past 3 days, to create Wikipedia:Recentism? That page is not Policy, it is not a guideline, it is not even a proposed policy or guideline. It is just an opinion piece. Johntex 17:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yes it was me. I wasn't logged in at the time. Oops. PS Johntex, use colons and not bullets when replying to posts -- it indents the text. MPS 17:41, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The effect of the Hurricane on New Orleans is significant enough to be documented and complicated enough to be documented in its own article. You can't just invent things like that "Recentism" page and then try to apply it authoritatively wherever you think there shouldn't be an article or update. If you can't provide solid reasoning for your opinions about this article I think you should keep them to yourself for the time being. --170.171.1.5 18:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Marskell gets credit for it over on Talk:Pat Robertson. Clearly not all the details here will stick around forever. I now agree that it is an necessary article, but largely because it protects the [[New Orleans] article and the Hurricane Katrina article from overzealous contributors. You don't see an article on the Effect of the Iraq War on Baghdad, do you? MPS 20:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Recentism article explains pretty well why this article is necessary... and, as I've been finding out lately (chalk it up to inexperience), an editing nightmare. Deadsalmon 06:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NASA satellite photos

See here [3] for the description of the photo. It is not before flooding.

I'll see your Spiegel and raise you a NASA. From [4] in reference to [5] (which I removed from the article because it is the same two pictures) "Image above: Before (left) and after (right) images from NASA's Terra spacecraft show the effects of flooding in the New Orleans area."

The description text is necessary for readers to understand the photo. —thames 17:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Captions disagrees with you.
"Though succinctness is not the same as brevity, it is easy to write a caption too long. Even more than with all good writing, any superfluous word that can be removed from a caption increases its power" and "Save some information for the image description page, and put other information in the article itself, but make sure the reader does not miss the essentials in the picture".
I hardly think readers need to be told that land is green, water is blue, and clouds are white. All they need to know is that one image is before the flooding occured, and the other is after. Any more information can be placed on the image's page or in the article itself.
Darrien 17:56, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
You win this round, Benvolio. I'll know better than to trust those crazy German news magazines in the future.  ;) —thames 18:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Individual accounts / Fats Domino?

  • Is the recently added "Other" section mentioning Fats Domino appropriate in this article? Being an aging rocker does't really elevate his importance as a missing person over anybody else, and if we were to write an entry on each missing person, it'd fill a book... and not fit in this context anyways. Anybody else think it needs to be deleted or moved elsewhere? Deadsalmon 20:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with that statement so much that I think it should be deleted. It's just wrong to point out one victim in the midst of so many victims as if his life is somehow more important than the rest of the lives. In fact, I personally believe his well-being is even less important. Many people in New Orleans stayed behind because they had no choice, not enough money or no means to leave the city. Fats Domino, however, did have the means to leave the city. A mandatory evacuation means just that. If Fats Domino decided because of sheer bravado that he was going to stay behind, frankly his possible death should be no surprise to anyone. Rescue teams should waste no time looking for people like Fats Domino that stayed behind for no reason. Go ahead and call me insensitive, but I feel absolutely no sympathy for people like Fats Domino who are in this bad situation even though they had an easy means of escaping it. joturner 21:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fats Domino is nonetheless a celebrity and, whether you like it or not, celebrities recieve particular focus when they're affected by tragedy. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it personally; Domino has been covered on yahoo news and elsewhere and therefor his disappearance warrents a spot within the article. We have a celebrity focused culture and it's not wikipedia's job to attempt to change that. Trilemma 00:46, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because the US is POV:Pop Culture doesn't mean Wikipedia can't look past that and provide a neutral focus that looks at all of the people suffering rather than picking out celebrities to bring the impact closer to home. It's the same way that the U.S. Media reports when specific Americans are caught up in some international event. It's not because it's important or because we care, it's because that's the only way some people will pay attention. Peyna 03:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that argument could then be used against the inclusion of any news item, claiming that the concentration of it by US media sources is POV. Objectively compiling relevant materials would involve inclusion of all things recieving media attention, regardless of individual complaints about the said attention. I can understand your complaint against the focus on celebrities, but again this is itself POV, a criticism of media coverage. Trilemma
FWIW, Fats has since been found. [6]--Westendgirl 05:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I put him in there. Since he has been found, I guess he should be removed from the article. One piece of good news, anyway. Incidentally, Fats Waller was a great Classical Pianist too and won a prestigious piano competion, beating many later famous Concert Pianists. He rates a mention.Leistung 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fats Waller died in 1943 of pneumonia not related to Hurricane Katrina. Dystopos 22:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great to have a seperate page for individuals that had been confirmed as rescued. While most people in the situation don't have access to wikipedia, it couldn't hurt to have a page available

Digression: Is there a wikipedia term for "separate page" I have heard some call it a spinoff page and I called it a side article. I want to see if there is wiki-terminology for this. If you know please tell me via my talk talk page. MPS 01:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Digiglobe "before" photo

Can someone add this 9 March "before" satellite photo of New Orleans for comparison:

http://www.digitalglobe.com/images/katrina/new_orleans_msi_march9_2004_dg.jpg

It should carry the same copyright info as the Digiglobe "after" photo featured. Thanks! Jokestress 21:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, can someone set up a picture of the dead bodies please?

Why do you want one? That's simply morbid, and many would say in bad taste. --Titoxd 01:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Name: New Orleans flood?

I suggest renaming this article "New Orleans flood". Shorter and simpler, and while Katrina was the cause of the flood, the hurricane is long gone. The emphasis is going to be on developments starting with Katrina and extending over the next several months. —wwoods 22:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But hasn't Noo Awleans had other floods? — 165.230.149.164 00:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
New Orleans flood, 2005? Or wait to see what it ends up being popularly called?

Here is a quote from this article: "2005 Great New Orleans Flood". Let's see if this becomes widely used. — 65.168.148.91 18:01, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest 2005 Flooding of New Orleans. The title "2005 Great New Orleans Flood" is too dramatic, and should not be used (unless of course, if it achieves widespread use in the world at large) — 209.6.22.214 01:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling on this is always to stick with the name of the causative disaster. We don't have the article, for example, at 2005 Indian Ocean tsunami. Also, a lot of the damage wasn't caused by the flooding. — Golbez 01:57, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Since the Indian Ocean tsunami happened on Dec. 26, 2004, it would be listed as 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. However, that listing redirects to 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. The earthquake caused the tsunami, which affected many areas that did not feel any shaking from the quake. — Diamantina 05:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Err, yeah, I meant 2004 :) And yes, the earthquake caused the tsunami, and the tsunami did most of the damage, but the earthquake was the initiating event. However, an article on the specifics and physics of the flood might be useful, like how we have an article specifically on the collapse of the WTC. --Golbez 05:54, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of playing devil's advocate, Hurricane Katrina was not the only "initiating event" behind the tragedy being documented in this article. Katrina had little to do with having put so many people in danger without tested means of safe evacuation or rescue. For various reasons, distinguising (not divorcing) the "2005 New Orleans flooding" from the other "Effects of Hurricane Katrina" makes some sense to me. Dystopos 23:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refugees??

The people evacuated from the effected areas are not refugees, they are evacuees, aren't they? A refugee is defined in the dictionary as a person who takes refuge in a foreign country. They are only moving to an other state, not another country. "Evacuees" seems a bit more acurate to me. --BoyoJonesJr 22:57, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I checked Dictionary.com [7] and I see that the third definition is "an exile who flees for safety", so it is a correct usage here by the third definition. The same source gives the first definition of evacuee as "A person evacuated from a dangerous area." So, I would say that either are correct but evacuee may be prefered. I have no objection either way. Wiki:Be Bold applies here, I think. Go ahead and edit it, I doubt anyone with revert you. Johntex 23:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Exile" usually means abroad. Rd232 10:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Those who left during the evacuation phase are evacuees, they had time to pack some stuff and departed in their cars, etc. Those who remained but later forced to leave after the hurricane are in far worse shapes and carry little items with them, they are called refugees. --Vsion 05:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an evacuee would be someone who was evacuated, not someone who left on their own will. Hence the "ee". Peyna 05:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly, refugees are people who take refuge in foreign countries. Otherwise, they are "internally displaced persons". But in common usage, "refugee" is used loosely to mean anybody fleeing in the face of disaster. Rd232 10:22, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the term refugees could be applied to the situation. "refugee" seems to be sensationalism more than anything. I think the article should be as accurate as possible because "refugee" has a certain connotation (as being more related to a war) that doesn't really fit the situation. --BoyoJonesJr 14:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
etymologically, "refugee" means "seeker of refuge" and could apply despite the tendency of modern usage to assume political refuge. Dystopos 05:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mentions of Southern Decadence, and its causation of the Hurricane

Yes America's oil sector was boxed on the ear, but you cannot fault any human hand for this, but only JAH controls all things. Repent now and forever make your Peace. User:173.154.221.208

I wish that any wikipedians, regardless of what kind of religious or political ideologies they subscribe to, to refrain from, or at least think seriously, before mentioning that the Southern Decadence (a homosexual version of Mardi Gras) as being the cause of the storm. I am sickened by that mention in the Tourism area of this page. This is a national tragedy, and this is a time where everyone unite to solve the problem. To try to push for some form of religious dogma in this time of need is unnecessary, nor is it appropriate. --Arbiteroftruth 01:07, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone has removed that statement. However, whoever added it misquoted the article. The article never claims that Katrina hit because of Southern Decadence. The article says:
..."Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," stated Repent America director Michael Marcavage. "From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. From the devastation may a city full of righteousness emerge," he continued. ...
"We must help and pray for those ravaged by this disaster, but let us not forget that the citizens of New Orleans tolerated and welcomed the wickedness in their city for so long," Marcavage said. "May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God," Marcavage concluded.
You can read the full text for yourself here.
Quoting this group (correctly, and in the proper context) would be no more nor less appropriate than quoting Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as saying the Hurricane was caused by the Republicans choosing not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Johntex 01:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is God's work; it's not his style. If New Orleans had been destroyed by a hitherto unsuspected volcano, sure. But a flood is too naturalistic, and besides, God generally exterminates men, women, children, and farm animals, he doesn't just destroy homes and leave a lot of refugees.

Johntex, I deleted the statement, because I consider it to be extremely inappropriate at all, even when the quote is quoted correctly. This is no time for pushing a form of religious dogma. --Arbiteroftruth 01:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arbiter. Actually, our articles should never be pushing a form of religious dogma. Our articles should strive for NPOV. However, that also means we shouldn't leave out notable statements religeous groups made just because we may not agree with them. If a notable religous group really had said that the hurricane was a result of God's vengence, we should note that in an appropriate place somewhere within our coverage. Johntex 01:59, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased that bit for now to make it a bit more neutral. -Loren 02:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be moved to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina. -Loren 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, Repent America is hardly a notable religious group. Much of its notability comes only from this statement. If were going to mention this then we better mention HAARP. Jimbobsween 05:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked into HAARP. I think Repent America is borderline notable. I have no objection to a move to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina.Johntex 13:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Has anyone notable said HAARP did it? ~~ N (t/c) 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
An anon mentioned it in Talk:Hurricane Katrina so odds are it's probably circulating around the conspiracy crowd. -Loren 09:07, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do mot think searching for any sort of guilt has anything to do with this article. Besides, no one is guilty. It simply happened. -- LostJedi 11:08, 3 September 2005 (MEST)

Format

When putting an update into the article, please do not date the update. Instead, use the As of... format. This is not a blog or a journal and if you date articles with (9/1/2005) or whatever, it looks like a blog. We don't want that. --Woohookitty 01:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add to this, instead of Wikilinking the same date (i.e. 2 September over and over each time it is used; just Wikilink it the first time. The article gets real muddy looking otherwise. I tried to correct this a little bit, but it's tedious. For reference, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links) Peyna 04:58, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, a date should be wikilinked every time it is used, to allow for user's date display preferences to work. (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Date formatting) Proto t c 13:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However thsi should only b done if the FULL date is being used, day, month, and year. Date preferences do not work on day/month or other forms with less than full dte info, and these should not generally be wiki-liked at all. DES (talk) 20:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Day/month is also recognised; wikilinking 'March 23' will cause it to be displayed as either 23 March, March 23 or 3/23, depending on user's preferences. Proto t c 09:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. I finally find out why people wikilink dates all the time and find out it is to allow dates to be expressed differently according to people's preferences. And there I was clicking on the date links all the time and thinking that the author of the article thought it was a good idea to have links to all the dates, no matter how obscure. Shouldn't this "date preference" thing be separated from the wikilink function? Two separate needs and two separate solutions, surely? Carcharoth 14:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knock-on effects / Aftereffects

Is this some kind of colloquialism? I think there has to be a better term that will be better understood by a wider audience that can be used instead. Peyna 03:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that heading made me wonder too. Even the term "domino effects" would be better, though not anywhere near perfect. — ceejayoz ★ .com 06:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


What about "indirect" or "secondary" effects? - minh Sep. 2, 2005

probably more widely understood Peyna

What about "repercussions"? Or is that a peculiarity of British English? 213.1.45.2 18:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "repercussion" carries a negative connotation. Almost in the form of a negative punishment as a result of something. Not all secondary effects will be of this type. Peyna 19:20, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than "medium-term", a better choice would be "Anticipated" or "Forseen". If "repercussions" is too pejorative (which i think it is), then "Ramifications" or "Aftereffects" would be more accurate. In my opinion, simply using "Ramifications" would be best, because this heading is already a child of the heading "Aftermath". mmason

Tourism

As a follow up to my request for a map, it would be helpful if the new Tourism section outlined the state of various tourism landmarks. For people who don't live in New Orleans, the maps do give a sense of the extent of flooding, but it's hard to understand where. I haven't seen any media reports discuss the damage to the tourist areas of the French Quarter, Bourbon Street, aquarium, Audobon, Ann Rice's house, cemeteries, etc. I don't mean to make light of the plight of average people in New Orleans. However, since tourism and business conventions are so important to the city, it might be helpful to understand what happened in those areas. I've seen a few reports that showed people in the French Quarter, but they didn't provide any context for location. --Westendgirl 05:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested, too. As New Orleans is one of the cities I always wanted to visit (but never found the time/money/persons to accompany me), I hope I get the chance to visit it. As far as I know or can read from the maps, the banks of the Missisippi seem to be above see level, so would be most of French Quarter. Please correct me if I'm wrong. As for the other mentioned places, I simply don't know either. By the way, where can I find a more detailed account on why New O has that strange geography of the highest point being the banks of the Missisippi? Never realized that before. -- LostJedi 13:30, 2 September 2005 (MEST)

The concept is natural levee, but Wikipedia doesn't have much (yet).
—wwoods 00:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Proto t c 13:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm talking about the loss of heritage and tourism sites. I'm not seeking a travel guide. However, the effect on tourism sites is noteworthy. For example, the Louisiana Purchase was signed in the French Quarter. Several churches are important. Bourbon Street is important. We can't speculate on what will happen to the tourism and convention industries, but I think it would be relevant to outline what happened to key areas. Even outside of tourism, people around the world have heard of places like the French Quarter and Audubon.--Westendgirl 02:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is that relevant? I think this is a good idea. ~~ N (t/c) 14:33, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think what User:Westendgirl is talking about is the status to the tourist areas, which is not necessarily covered by the WP:NOT restrictions on travel guides. If the French Quarter is gone, that is notable, encyclopedic, newsworthy, and deserves a mention in the article. --Titoxd 17:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Are the French Quarter and Central Business District still there? We're getting mixed reports up in Canada. --Westendgirl 17:21, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to clear out the speculation.

--VKokielov 06:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see less than--well, either I'm a lazy son of a bitch, or I assume too freely. Or both. --VKokielov 06:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creating Chronology for this Article

  • I'm assuming that anyone bothering to read the talk page has at least some interest in developing this into a more coherent article. To that end, any suggestions on a more concise way to frame the chronology than what we've got? At the time, information is scattered and often repeated. My initial suggestion would be to reorganize the material into something like the following sections: Predictions (which is in good shape already), Mandatory Evacuation / Refuge, Initial Damage (or something to that effect focusing on damage from the hurricane itself), Flooding (could be expanded to include the riots, secondary evacuations, etc.), and, in the future, an Aftermath or other reconstruction section. I know I'm getting ahead of events some, but some coordination would be helpful. Deadsalmon 06:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Deadsalmon's suggestion (above) for turning this page into a good encyclopedia article. --New Thought 09:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "Predictions" section is decent, but the title is misleading. It might be better labelled "Background" since it is really setting the stage for what led to the events currently taking place. The section also almost suggests a POV that there were all of these warnings that were ignored so those who ignored them might be to blame. It almost sounds like a "Prophesy" section. Peyna 17:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest also a companion Timeline of Hurricane Katrina, that can consist of a datestamped series of events to help in structuring/ordering the other more narrative-oriented articles, much like: Timeline of the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. Lexor|Talk 08:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Agreed... Deadsalmon 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You may as well wait a week for things to calm down before even trying to make the article more encyclopaedic, as any changes you make will be subsumed by the deluge of further irrelevancies. Proto t c 13:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...and agreed. Possibly longer. But we could make some headway on parts now; particularly relating to the hurricane itself and not the subsequent flooding. Deadsalmon 01:51, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of pets?

People who are being evacuated to the Astrodome are not being allowed to take their pets with them.[8] Can somebody put this in? I can't find a place to put it. Auric 12:34, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Um. Is that really a piece of important and encyclopaedic information? Proto t c 13:26, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there are people who will not go without their pets. It's an ever-present problem in all US hurricane evacuations, because most shelters won't allow pets. People regard them as members of the family, so they don't evacuate.Pollinator 14:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Of course its important. I have added your entry to the Animal Concerns part of Hurricane Katrina. You can change it, if you want to. Leistung 12:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Education subheader

This is quickly becoming a buliten board for schools offering to take in students. I was about to add Spring Hill College when I realized that section is about to bloat itself beyound the needs of the article. Perhaps this could be condenced to a line or two saying that some schools are offering places, and then a helpfull user (wouldn't know where to start myself) could use some of their space for the growing list with a link in the article for those who wish to know. Donovan Ravenhull 14:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Shots Fired At Helicopter?

The media, and this article, is still repeating the 'shots were fired at a helicopter' story from New Orleans. Here's what the Federal Aviation Authority has to say about it:

Laura Brown, a Federal Aviation Administration spokeswoman in Washington, said she had no such report.
"We're controlling every single aircraft in that airspace and none of them reported being fired on," she said, adding that the FAA was in contact with the military as well as civilian aircraft.

Of course, this is buried in the middle of a story.

Just wanted to explain the removal. Ipsenaut 19:50, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed Picture

Someone before me put a picture of a penis on this page. I have since deleted this picture, but I have not changed the content of the article.

Can Some Edit this Article?

Why is someone trying to insert a picture of a penis? This is article is related to a serious problem, and I am really annoyed by the idiot he not only puts the picture, but changes the picture of the same thing.

Persistent vandalism, it was hard to find a recent acceptable version. In the amount of edits, I got reverted one to the wrong version, sorry. Alf 20:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked the vandal's IP range; if it happens again, I'll block his whole ISP. --Golbez 20:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
I fixed this again. What a pain.


It needs to be fixed again. What a sicko.

Police Looting

Aside from this violent, armed looting, there are also reports of residents simply gathering food from unstaffed grocery stores for a lack of other sources of food. In some cases, this looting is happening right in front of the police's eyes, in broad daylight, and in some instances involving the active participation of police officers.

Can someone confirm this? It sounds to hard to believe.

The given source doesn't say that, so the last part of the sentence should be taken off. Is the police officers there to organize an orderly distribution of food? That wouldn't be such a bad idea ... --Vsion 22:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I recall seeing on TV a police officer standing in front of store who reported that he could do nothing to stop the looting, but he instructed those looting that there were people a few blocks over that really needed supplies and if they were to help them out he wouldn't do anything if they helped themselves aftewards.

I don't think it's worth pointing out really. Considering the jails were flooded and the police had much bigger fish to fry, what were they going to do? It would have caused more harm than good if they tried to stop the looting. Actually pointing out that they "actively participated" in it is almost POV in that it doesn't fully explain why, and therefore leaves the reader to draw their own, potentially anti-police biased conclusion. Peyna 22:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed disputed part. --Vsion 23:21, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

newsmax.com says there was police looting: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/8/31/102233.shtml If true, then including it can help a reader understand what the situtation was like. --noösfractal 07:28, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Times-Picayune I believe originally reported police joining in looting: "Some officers joined in taking whatever they could, including one New Orleans cop who loaded a shopping cart with a compact computer and a 27-inch flat screen television."

ALthough the police were called in to stop looters before organised food was given out, I cannot say that anyone in my household has heard anything of police looting (after watching the news for the entire night).

You can download the MSNBC piece on police looting here. --M4-10 22:19, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material verbatim!!

I have removed and reworded another section that was copied verbatim from an AP news report. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material onto Wikipedia!!. If there is important news to be added, please summarize it in your own words while linking to the source! -Loren 23:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and I just added a new section to the page titled "News Articles Relating to Government's Slow Response." Did I exceed the rights of fair use?

You have no rights to fair use of text on the Wikipedia, at all. Only images, and only in certain circumstances. --Kiand 21:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to split

I would like to propose a new article, may be named "Humanitarian crisis in New Orleans, 2005" or something like that. It would primarily address such issues as 1. Evacuation before the hurricane. 2. Superdome as a shelter during the hurricane 3. Post-hurricane evacuation, refugee camps (Superdome and Convention Center at first then Astrodome and others). 4. Relief efforts and lack of thereof. 5. Looting and crime. 6. Health concerns 7. Casualties. 8. Relocation efforts by regions and cities. 9. International response (if any).

This article ("Effects of the hurricane on New Orleans") would address the 1.Timeline of events. 2. Map and the extent of the damage (e.g., levees). 3. Reference to the Humanitarian crisis 4. Effect on industries, oil, casinos, education etc. 5. Effects on the environment 6. Bringing New Orleans back to life. (Igny 23:43, 2 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  • It's not a bad idea, but those seem like difficult concepts to separate from each other. If we're looking to split things up, doing it according to time rather than topic seems better to me, given how intertwined the events are (see the above header on Chronology). In any case, given how rapidly edits are made, and will be until things begin to settle some, it would probably be best to hold off any major splits for some time. Deadsalmon 06:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • given how rapidly edits are made,. I just have concerns that this article becomes increasingly hard to read, and in those poorly organized edits some information may be getting lost (forgotten). Igny 15:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a legit concern, but given the wide distribution of information, it's highly unlikely any irreplaceable information will be lost. At worst, a well-written section may be overwritten, and a pretty comprehensive rewrite will probably be necessary in the future anyways. Deadsalmon 10:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fire picture

Does the fire picture (Image:New Orleans Fire 2005-09-02.jpg) look faked to anyone else? Anybody know any news report regarding this fire? (I mean, is it actually relevant? The article itself doesn't mention it.) Phaunt 00:24, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information about the fire (and lots of other things) at http://mgno.com/ (which, by the way, is also the source of that picture). --cesarb 02:01, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ia:Effectos del hurracan Katrina contra New Orleans

I have a request: Would anyone who knows Interlingua help to expand the Interlingua article? It doesn't even have to be good Interlingua -- I can perform grammar checks and editing tommorow -- but we need to get information out about what has happened so far. I can't do it myself, one because the topic is huge, and two because I'm running on fumes and have to help out tommorow. Almafeta 07:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Information vs. History

I agree that the long-term value of this and the other articles about Hurricane Katrina is the historical record it provides about this major event in US history.

However, these articles also provide a huge public service today as what is probably the most comprehensive catalog of information about the storm on the web today. The main article shows up in the top 5 of Google hits and Google hits are (generally) priortized by how many other sites link to a page. People are linking to this site because of its comprehensive information quality.

Everyone must observe the laws of copyright - including not using unreferenced quotes. A month from now, let's edit this article to be a proper encylopedia entry. Today, let it be a living document and let it serve the needs of people needing information about this event.

Keep things on Topic

I deleted the Hugo Chavez information simply because this article is not about Chavez, it is not about the Vargas disaster of 1999 and It is not about which country has greater resources. Please keep things on topic "effect of hurricane Katrina on New Orleans"

Racism

Perhaps we should mention in the article the references ministers and Kanye West made to "George Bush not caring about black people". I myself think that they are just digging themselves into a deeper hole by stirring up trouble, but in the spirit of neutrality, should it be mentioned?--Importancenn 10:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Law Officers

[9] Found this on the Drudge Report, it's from the NY Times. Apparently, atleast 200 overwhelmed police officers have left the force, and 2 have commited suicide. This definately needs to get put in somewhere, but I'm not sure where. --Scapegoat pariah 18:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another source for the 2 suicides: [10] see Saturday 2.01 pm. Steve Rapaport 20:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

...and from the Interdictor: (a blog from an ISP still online there) Law enforcement have absolutely lost their minds. Some guy wearing khaki fatigues and black vests which say Police on them have their faces covered in black ski masks and are touting M4-A1s with front hand grips -- like they're some kind of Delta Force operators waiting to hit the tire room. They're guarding the four corners around the Bell South building for crying out loud. And what, they need secret identities? Come on. You can just tell some of these guys have never gotten out before. Now's their big chance to play Army. Steve Rapaport 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another good source from the New Orleans Times-Picayune: Most officers working on adrenaline, little else-Loren 00:43, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Water receeding. Why?

According to some news sources, the water seems to be receeding from some parts of the city. The article doesn't mention this, nor explain why. Can anyone informed please add this info. --Hullbr3ach 22:34, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that water level in Lake Pontchartrain dropped by 2 feet. This may be just natural tide fluctuation. When this happens, it helps to drain out a large amount of flood water from New Orleans, with just natural forces (without pumps at all!). So the Engineers (Army Corp of Engineers), were taking advantage of this by not closing the levee gap too quickly because that was where the water flowed out. But it was a calculated decision with some risks, as the tide could rise again and push the water back in. The engineers tried to minimize the risk by making the gap smaller, but not closing it completely, hence controlling the maximum rate of water flow through the gap. With the report of receedng water, I believed this strategy was working in reducing the flood while the pumps are still not working. A recent report [11] now says that the Engineers "had succeeded in closing off the 17th Street canal"; so I guess they have sealed the gap now, and are fixing the pumps to push the remaining water out. --Vsion 23:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also understand that in the immediate wake of Katrina the lake level was unusually high, even after inundating the city. Some water would flow back into the lake as it went back down to "normal" levels. At the same time some of the water would soak into the ground or evaporate. There is a limit to how much more drying can occur naturally without getting the pumps back on-line. Dystopos 22:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Landrieu

I'd change the bit about Landrieu wanting to delay judgment especially after her mini-breakdown on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. Mike H (Talking is hot) 05:48, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Asinine Grafitti

Whoever put the picture of male genitalia on this article should be shot! This is a very serious situation and you are a despicable human being. I don't know how to remove it or I would!

Needs a source or two

Removed this sentence, pending a link/URL to Fox News story and preferably one other source. Lexor|Talk 18:08, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, it was reported on Fox News that several political friends of Mayor Nagin were given preferential treatment once buses arrived at the Superdome, being moved to the front of the line ahead of evacuees that had been at the Superdome since it opened for shelter.

SOMEONE GET RID OF THE GIANT C*CK PICTURE PLEASE!!!

Two articles/lists that should be added

There ought to be a list of the cities and states offering to accept Katrina evacuees. Also there ought to be a list of National Guard units operating in the Gulf Coast.

--User: Ajbenj

Doc Searls calls this page "most remarkable"

Tells FEMA they should look here. [12] Woo Hoo!
--Baylink 21:41, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Primary Causes, Convention center cite

Primary causes does not make even nodding gesture toward global warming as a primary cause whether or not it's controversial, it's at least a probable cause of the greatly strengthened storm's energy.

In the section on emergency shelters, the convention center is described as an officially-identified emergency shelter. Given that no national or loacl authorities appear to have acknowledged the evacuee population there, can it be verified that the Convention center is in fact official? 216.173.212.234 04:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)mwhybark[reply]

The case for global warming is made in the main article Hurricane. It is my understanding that scientific consensus holds that the last few decades of tropical weather have been unusually calm and that a resumption of historically "normal" activity would appear to be a great increase in severe tropical weather regardless of global warming. All hurricanes strengthen in the relatively warm gulf of mexico. Nothing about Katrina indicates that it was affected differently from other storms, so it would be difficult to assign any particular blame to global warming that couldn't just as well be assigned to other geographic or climatic conditions. Dystopos 05:13, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the primary cause was the Hurricane itself; the rain, the wind, the storm surge, these are primary causes. Global warming, poor planning, a city below sea level, those are all secondary causes. Perhaps we need to move a number of things out of the Primary Causes subheading and put them somewhere more appropriate. Peyna 18:25, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

NAFTA

Is this correct? "Canadian aircraft will also be deployed as part of a NAFTA military assistance pact." I wasn't aware that free trade had anything to do with the miitary. Are we sure this isn't NATO or NORAD? --Westendgirl 06:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply] 

   * I believe that should be NATO, NAFTA is a trade agreement. :P - Kyaa

Change name to "New Orleans disaster"?

Should this article be re-named to something like New Orleans disaster or 2005 New Orleans disaster? NO has had hurricanes before, but never before has there been destruction and flooding on this scale, still less the total breakdown of civil order or starvation. -- The Anome 08:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

No need for Wikipedia to invent names for disasters on its own. If such a term gains widespread recognition in the general public it might be worthy of consideration. That said, I believe that with past hurricanes you will find that even when the destruction was not directly related to the hurricane, it is referred to in that manner. Peyna 18:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Katrina affected more than just New Orleans. Your suggested titles would imply that the disaster in New Orleans was a separate event. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Treating what's happening in New Orleans as distinguishable from what's happening in Mississippi, and even from the rest of Louisiana makes sense. That's what's being done in the media--and that's the reason for this article, after all. I heard an opinion that only 1/5 of the damage to NO was directly due to the hurricane and 4/5 to the flooding (which of course was indirectly due to Katrina).
—wwoods 19:50, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for the continued existence of Lake Pontchartrain

Could someone explain to me, why this Lake has not been emptied and dried yet? I did not make extensive research, but got the impression, that the lake is a major threat. Are there any reasons, for preserving it? I am wondering why water is pumped into the lake and not into the Mississippi or the sea. It could also get filled up to the height of the levees/barriers that protect the city. Thsi would create new land and protect the city much better. Is there anything that forbids such a measure?

  • Without knowing the exact geology of the place, it will not be too easy to answer this question. The lake must have an influx from somewhere, and there is a certain level of ground water. Remember, the Bajou is a swamp, and you needed pumps to keep at least New O dry anyway. It is not that easy. (And yeah, I know, this is no discussion board.) --LostJedi 10:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Read the wikipedia entry on Lake Pontchartrain. It is a very large, though shallow lake. It is 40 miles by 24 miles, and filling it in would be a mammoth task. Easier to build up the levees around New Orleans. Also, look at the number of rivers draining into the lake. You have to channel that water somewhere. 194.200.237.219 11:43, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Something on the order of the Zuiderzee Works might be possible. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The Lake is the most convenient outlet to the Gulf of Mexico. It could not be "emptied and dried out" because it is only slightly above sea level itself. There is nowhere to drain it to and it would continue to refill naturally. The River is actually a good bit higher than the lake as it passes through New Orleans. Building smaller areas up to the height of the levees might be feasible, but filling Lake Pontchartrain is clearly not. Dystopos 19:09, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If I may put in my two cents, IMHO New Orleans should not be built in the same place. It should be built on the north side of Lake Pontchartrain. At least the new New Orleans will have some protection just in case. --BigWilliam 20:28, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Effects_of_Hurricane_Katrina_in_New_Orleans&oldid=22793710"