Jump to content

Talk:2016 Louisiana floods

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 98.166.3.202 (talk) at 12:45, 22 August 2016 (→‎Article view stats). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Insurance/economic impact

PBS reports, "Louisiana’s insurance commissioner estimates 75 percent of those affected by the flooding do not have flood insurance.". Is there state or federal funding? Once this has calmed down, we should add a paragraph about the economic impact of the flood.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:45, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzig20s:I agree that a section titled economic impact would be relevant to the topic. I will look for more sources right now and keep an eye out for more in the next 2 days or so. If there isn't sufficient info for a full section on economic impact we can create a more general section called aftermath. I'll read up on this some more though I think I recall hearing that homeowners living in areas not considered "flood risk areas" that still had flooding are going to be compensated by FEMA or something similar. Williamcasey (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Aftermath. I see you've added referenced info about the Red Cross. Are there other non-profit organizations on the ground? This being the South, possibly church groups?Zigzig20s (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more, including the Church of Scientology.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Should we added something about snakes? Apparently they have come out with the floods.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: Doesn't seem very important. Where there is water in the Louisiana there are snakes. Williamcasey (talk) 22:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spinoff page for weather system?

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I know that it will be visible here: Where is the best place to mention the events related to the inclement weather which caused the Louisiana floods? I was going to make a subsection on this article but the article is clearly only about the flooding in eastern Louisiana. There is at least one notable event coming out of it – a record daily rainfall total in South Bend, Indiana, accompanied by its own flooding (local NWS report, newspaper article) – but there was also a long-lived tornado elsewhere in Indiana as well as severe weather warnings in Pennsylvania and New York, and the moisture retrograded into east Texas, though I can't find anything that says that extreme effects came from that. Mapsax (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mapsax:I would say that it defiantly isn't notable enough for it's own article. I really don't know much about meteorology, though I can understand that many are interested in the weather system itself. If you are completely confident that they are related and have a few reliable sources about this weather system having notable affects outside of the Louisiana, then I think you can make note of it in this article under meteorological history. This article a few days ago had been merged with 2016 American Northeast heat wave, though I helped to split them into two separate articles as I couldn't see most readers thinking of those two events as one big event, even if they were somehow related in meteorological terms. Williamcasey (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parishes affected

A Whitehouse.gov blog post mentions Acadia, Ascension, Avoyelles, East Baton Rouge, East Feliciana, Evangeline, Iberia, Iberville, Jefferson Davis, Lafayette, Livingston, Pointe Coupee, St. Helena, St. Landry, St. Martin, St. Tammany, Tangipahoa, Vermilion, Washington and West Feliciana as eligible for federal aid, many more than are shown in File:2016 Louisiana floods map of affected parishes.png. @Williamcasey: does this merit modification of the map?

User:Erutuon: I just saw this and you were right, though I just uploaded an updated map showing these parishes so the problem is solved. The new map: File:2016 Louisiana floods map of parishes declared federal disaster areas.png. Thanks for pointing this out. Williamcasey (talk) 04:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama is playing golf in Martha's Vineyard.

This should be in the lede. User:NewsAndEventsGuy has reverted it. There are at least three references (we could find more), with comparisons to President Bush's initial handling of Hurricane Katrina.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot more than three, but it isn't really relevant to what text belongs in the WP:LEAD section. In the reverted text, the noun is the president. The discussion is about the president's whereabouts. Now we're doing presidential comparison to GW. None of that has a focus on the flood, which is what the article is about and in my view the lead should focus on what the article is about. Today's big news with a lot more references is the deafening silence nationwide which is bigger than the president's vacation. I'm fine with adding text such as "According to so-and-so, flood recovery is hampered by a relative silence from the rest of the country". That keeps the focus on an aspect of the article topic (flood recovery), rather than focusing attention to beat up on any individuals or organizations. It's about the flood.... causes, event play by play, recovery. Keep the nouns and verbs focused on that, and I'll probably click "thank you". NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The silence starts with the President, who is playing golf while people are drowning. This is what the reliable third-party sources all say. They don't talk about a "nationwide silence", unless you can find other references. I think we should stick to the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your emphasis on the PRESIDENT instead of the FLOOD suggests you have the wrong article. Meanwhile RSs along these lines are abundant (try Google Louisiana Flood Silence). A couple top hits on my search were
Finally, you flatly ignored the meat of my objection.... pick nouns and verbs that are about the FLOOD and we should be good. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you have this requirement. It sounds arbitrary.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because the Manual of Style expects lead sections to stick to the topic. Notice that one of the sources you want to use and have us follow says "That's why Obama won't break off his vacation in Martha's Vineyard — or stop playing golf on said vacation — to travel to Louisiana. Because he believes he can monitor the situation as well — or better — from where he is. And that the sole reason to go to Louisiana is for the theatrical piece of politics". If we put in your apparent slant that Prez "is playing golf while people are drowning." then per WP:Neutrality and WP:BLP we have to attribute that view to the people who hold it and also put in other peoples political views such as that part of the RSs that I just quoted. That's all stuff that belongs in articles about politics and politicians. See WP:OFFTOPIC. That said, I don't mind a passing reference to the both sides of the dispute in the text, just not in the lead. (Revised) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think The Washington Post may be referring to the Obama doctrine (Leading from behind). In any case, I don't think it is off topic to say in the lede that he is on a golf vacation in Martha's Vineyard while people are drowning. It is a simple description of the current situation. It might be deemed recentist--but then again, this flood is happening right now, so it would be. I also don't see President Obama as a politician (he's not running for office), but as the head of state (he represents the people who are drowning on the global stage). Can you offer another sentence that you'd like better please?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I thought he this merited mention in the lead - which I don't - I would still decline to invest the energy floating something to make you happy until we agree in principle that the nouns and verbs should be about the flood rather than the man. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to start an RFC?Zigzig20s (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Have to"? No of course not. See
We have already agreed that there are many good RSs about the divergent views of what the president is doing, and you haven't acknowledge my RSs about the media's relative silence. I have already agreed that some of this can be discussed with nouns and verbs making the text be about the flood instead of the man. Apparently, for you tne nouns must be about the man instead of the flood. I reviewed the AE case earlier this year in which your political views were frequently discussed, and the DS alert for US politics you erased Note that I already sent one to myself, there's no shame in getting those. This isn't a forum for bashing any government officials. If you're adamant about pushing this to be about the MAN on the article about the FLOOD.... good luck with that.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith, and focus on content, not the editors. I don't appreciate you digging into the archives of my talkpage to shame me; that's borderline harassment. The third-party sources talk about "the man", Obama. That's not me, that's the sources. I don't see why the lede shouldn't parallel the sources.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you wanted to impose a chilling effect on my editing by creeping me out. Mission accomplished.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: You do not own this article. What exactly needs to be "clarified"? Nothing. We are not going to do original research here. It is not your job to clarify anything. The press reports that Obama has been criticized for playing golf while Americans are drowning in Louisiana. We report it. That's it. I also object to your redaction of Trump's visit. It has been widely reported by the press; we should relay the information here, as User:ShadowDragon343 did.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy & User:Zigzig20s: I have completely rewritten the aftermath section. I combined everything that was there, along with new information, into a few paragraphs that flow well together. I have included information regarding Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump in the most neutral way I could. If either of you have any feedback please respond. Williamcasey (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not bad, but 1) can you re-insert the comparison to GWB's initial response to Katrina 2) I would rephrase the end a little bit to stress that Trump was the first one to visit the area and talk to the first responders; both Obama and Clinton don't really seem to care?Zigzig20s (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@William, Thanks. The entire section would be vastly improved if it was all cast in terms of flood response/recovery, such as "Disaster aide has been slow in coming. Various commentators such as XYZ attribute this to the lack of media coverage due to air time competing with the presidential election, the olympics, and so-called disaster fatigue. Visits from candidates Trump and Clinton resulted in XYZ help. From Aug __ to ___ Obama was doing ABC from Martha's Vineyard. So and so said this was insufficient and the Prez should visit because a Prez visit would help recovery by doing _____. The prez has scheduled a visit Aug ___ which is hoped to produce Y results, according to WH sources" Or some such. That's all about the FLOOD rather than just a celebrity diary, although that strong language doesn't adequately express my appreciation for William's new effort at neutrality. Thanks, good improvement. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: In my opinion it seems neutral enough. I can add the part back about GWB, but the response by GWB to Katrina was a little more extreme. I know there are politics behind major natural disasters, but can we please try to make this as bipartisan as possible? I don't want to get into any sort of argument and I respect your work on the article, but saying that Obama and Clinton don't seem to care is a partisan opinion. I'll tell you what: I'll mention that Trump was the first to visit and that Obama's response was reminiscent of GWB's response. Does anyone else have any other thoughts on this subject? Williamcasey (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Yes, if you could make those two edits (this is Obama's Katrina; Trump was the first to visit), that would be fair.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: I added the part about GWB, but I realized the part about Trump was already inferred. I really appreciated that Trump came and showed support for the Louisiana, but it seems I'm only adding that to make him seem better and it is already neutral enough. Thanks for everything, but when trying to fit it in, it just seemed unnecessary. Williamcasey (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: I disagree. He came and comforted the people before the president; that's not nothing. It would be anti-Trump bias not to say that.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: John Bel Edwards was right: Obama coming to the Louisiana would only distract first responders from rescue efforts. The part about Trump is inferred. I respect all you have done for this article and hope we can keep working on it, but this is only distracting us from focusing on the important parts of the article. If you want to add unnecessary filler text about Donald Trump go ahead. It's Wikipedia. Anyone can edit it. End of story. Williamcasey (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: No, we shouldn't take sides. There's Edwards's suggestion, and then there's Obama's Katrina. Two sides. Wikipedia editors are neutral, so we don't pick a side.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Zigzig20s: No hard feelings through any of this. Your edits you just made are fine and the article is still neutral. I think it has gotten a lot better today and is starting to look pretty good. Thanks for helping with it. Williamcasey (talk) 01:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Williamcasey: Happy to help. What I'd like to find out is if any/how many historic buildings on the National Register of Historic Places were damaged, possibly destroyed...Zigzig20s (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: I understand what you mean when you want to be about just flood, but the controversy surrounding the response still is very important. That is why there are different sections looking at these events from different perspectives. The last disaster similar to this in the Louisiana was Hurricane Katrina, and that article requires information about the event itself and then also information about the impact and response to make it complete. Thanks for helping with the article. Williamcasey (talk) 00:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The controversy is only relevant to this article in terms of the impact on actual response/recovery. What we should report is how the actions of these celebs made a difference on the ground (or not). The rest belongs on their bio page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They're not "celebs". They are the President of the United States and future president. We currently have a five-line paragraph; that is perfectly fine.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: This is POV. You're trying to make Trump look bad, even though he was the first to comfort the people. My earlier version was NPOV. Meanwhile, where is Hillary hiding?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: Mediaite is an entertainment blog. I don't think it's a reliable source.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:NewsAndEventsGuy: I have trimmed your POV editing as there is no consensus to add the sentence about Mediaite. We can add another sentence if Hillary ever tours the area. Please do not turn this into a smear campaign.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A. Incessant pings are gratuitous...I've got the page watchlisted
B. I didn't use Mediaite as a source for what Trump did. Instead, I used the RS Western Journalism to support text that according to Mediaite Trump did those things.
C. I'm going on a vacation of my own right now. Bye all.
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Damaged structures on National Register of Historic Places

User:Zigzig20s: I'm not totally sure where we could find that information. I don't recall seeing any articles in the news that have said that any historic places have been flooded, though I seems likely some have been. I'll try to look around some. If anyone else has any information on this please say something. Williamcasey (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link to disasterassistance.gov

User:Epicgenius: Even though this article isn't the first place somebody would probably look for help, I think including the link to disasterassistance.gov is still useful and relevant information. If it doesn't belong in a paragraph I think it should at least be in external links. Williamcasey (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article view stats

"The Washington Post noted that the "no-name storm" dumped three times as much rain on Louisiana as Hurricane Katrina."
Doesn't that lead to misleading comparison? The primary damage from Katrina was the hurricane winds and the breaching of the levee.98.166.3.202 (talk)

The article on Hurricane Katrina is receiving more traffic than this one, even though the flood is ongoing while Katrina happened 11 years ago. Weird. -- GreenC 00:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom: I guess this event reminds people of Hurricane Katrina? The comparison between the two: tools.wmflabs.org. Williamcasey (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Louisiana_floods&oldid=735689302"