Talk:Hurricane Katrina/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

trivial fix

...but this page is protected, so I can't correct the way "Governor" is spelled in:

not enough bus drivers were available to drive them as Govornor Blanco did not sign an emergency waiver

Thanx! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wkiernan (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks. Winston365 (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Major Error under "Preparations: Federal Government"

The article currently reads: "On the morning of Friday, August 26, at 10 a.m. CDT (1500 UTC), Katrina had strengthened to a Category 3 storm in the Gulf of Mexico. Later that afternoon, the NHC realized that Katrina had yet to make the turn toward the Florida Panhandle and ended up revising the predicted track of the storm from the panhandle to the Mississippi coast.[8][9]"

However, this is incorrect as supported by historical data; and even within the article itself as a logical incongruity. In a following section the timeline is stated correctly as "On Saturday, August 27, the storm reached Category 3 intensity on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale, becoming the third major hurricane of the season."

It's a serious error in an article which purports historical accuracy to state that on the Friday, August 26th, Hurricane Katrina was a category 3 storm in the Gulf of Mexico.

Climatological data on Katrina can be easily referenced here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA.shtml?

The article could correctly read along these lines: "By the late morning of Friday August 26th, Hurricane Katrina was showing signs of that it might regain strength as it moved into the Gulf of Mexico" http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.012.shtml?

At 9AM EST on Friday August 26th, Hurricane Katrina was a Category 1 storm in the eastern Gulf of Mexico; "INFORMATION FROM NOAA DOPPLER RADARS INDICATE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 75 MPH... WITH HIGHER GUSTS. KATRINA IS A CATEGORY ONE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS. AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT RECONNAISSANCE AIRCRAFT IS SCHEDULED TO INVESTIGATE KATRINA LATER THIS MORNING." http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public_b.011.shtml?

"Some Strengthening" was forecast.

At 11AM EST on Friday August 26 , Katrina was still a Category 1 storm. "NOAA DOPPLER RADAR DATA AND REPORTS FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT INDICATE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 80 MPH...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. KATRINA IS A CATEGORY ONE HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS...AND KATRINA IS FORECAST TO BECOME A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE BY SATURDAY" http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.012.shtml?

It's also worth noting that even at this time... Katrina was "FORECAST TO BECOME A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE BY SATURDAY"

The report for 5PM Eastern time on August 26th is referenced here: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/pub/al122005.public.014.shtml?

By 5PM on Friday August 26, things were to changing for the worse: "RECENT REPORTS FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT INDICATE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS REMAIN NEAR 100 MPH...WITH HIGHER GUSTS. KATRINA IS A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS...AND KATRINA IS FORECAST TO BECOME A CATEGORY THREE...MAJOR... HURRICANE TODAY AND ON SATURDAY."

And in fact, it is well worth taking a look at the report prepared by the federal government's National Hurricane Center: "Tropical Cyclone Report: Hurricane Katrina - 23-30 August 2005" prepared by Richard D. Knabb, Jamie R. Rhome, and Daniel P. Brown, of the National Hurricane Center and submitted on 20 December 2005. http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/pdf/TCR-AL122005_Katrina.pdf

According to this report, warnings and watches were not modified to include Louisiana until 3:00p.m UTC on August 27, 2005.

So, the article should be revised to conform to historical facts.

Philoska (talk) 05:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Added: The footnotes which are referenced to support the Friday August 26th Category 3 claim also, and perhaps unfortunately, do not support the claim. One is from 10PM CDT that night. The other is a 5PM EDT advisory which notes the beginning of the alarming shifts in forecast tracks along the unstable variables present.

Error re: Blanco disaster request

According to the Louisiana state government document already linked in this article (http://jjic.gov.state.la.us/Disaster%20Relief%20Request.pdf), Gov. Blanco not only requested assistance for "all the southeastern parishes including the New Orleans Metropolitan area and the mid state Interstate I-49 corridor and northern parishes along the I-20 corridor accepting the thousands of citizens forced to evacuate," but also did what the article currently claims she didn't, which is list the affected parishes by name. Blanco included Orleans, Jefferson and Plaquemine among "Parishes expected to receive major damage based on the anticipated track of Hurricane Katrina."

58.8.3.52 (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Done — Bility (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Edit semi-protected}} Please update the following to use the correct tense of the verb:

Five former police officers have pleaded guilty to charges connected to the Danziger Bridge shootings in the aftermath of the hurricane.

should be...

Five former police officers have pled guilty to charges connected to the Danziger Bridge shootings in the aftermath of the hurricane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.207 (talk)

Not done: "pleaded" is a correct spelling (British English). — Bility (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Link LSU Press

Link LSU Press, please. 99.181.131.237 (talk) 05:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Remove redline of Darren Martinez please.

Remove redline of Darren Martinez please. 99.181.155.142 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture

Main article: Hurricane Katrina in fiction

Main article: List of charity songs for Hurricane Katrina relief

In August 2006, HBO and 40 Acres & A Mule Filmworks released When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts. A four-hour documentary directed by Spike Lee, When the Levees Broke chronicles the events leading up to Katrina, as well as its immediate aftermath. In August 2010, a sequel documentary by Lee was released. Entitled If God Is Willing and Da Creek Don't Rise, the film marks the fifth anniversary of Katrina's arrival and the status of New Orleans and the Gulf region five years after the storm.

Katrina is one of the six featured stories in the climate change film The Age of Stupid. The name of the film was inspired by Alvin Duvernay, a Hurricane Katrina hero who saved 100 people in his boat.

Katrina has inspired numerous novels, plays and films, of which the HBO television series Tremé is perhaps the best known.

And these Hurricane Katrina in fiction and List of charity songs for Hurricane Katrina relief ? 99.181.140.243 (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 69.235.82.188, 18 July 2011

{{edit semi-protected|answered=no}}

69.235.82.188 (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No actual request here Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Damage figures

Why are we sticking with the NHC/NOAA damage figures? NCDC has this at $125 Billion, this press release has Katrina at $125 billion, these people have it at $125 billion, CNN has it at $125 billion, and that's just the beginning. Heck, even my local news station had the damages at $125 Billion. So why are sticking with the NHC/NOAA figures? Darren23^Edits|Mail 15:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It does say "...in the order of US$ 125bn." The $125 was an early estimate, and I see no reason not to use the NHC, just because the 125 is higher. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you want to use the NHC damage? the NCDC is more reliable when it comes to impact and the majority of sources suggest a total between $100 billion and $200 billion. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 15:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Because $125B is a rounded number, whereas the NHC has a much more exact total. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, the $125 billion includes uninsured estimates but yea, it's still estimated. Maybe include a |damagespost=$125 billion estimated after? Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Table 3A The NHC damage figure has recently been shifted upwards to 108,000,000,000 unadjusted for inflation and thats without taking the Bahamas damage into consideration. so maybe we should use the 125 bill. Jason Rees (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good find. I'm fine with $108B as the damage total. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Why does it seem that the post-storm damage is included? For example the bulk of the damage was due to civil engineering failures, in part, created by corruption in LA. If you take away the post-storm damages that are included in the storm damages you'll find Hurricane Andrew was more costly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.132.64.141 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Link please? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

But, didn't Katrina do the damage? While it was a "civil engineering failure", it would not have failed unless Katrina was there. So, the damage is directly attributable to Katrina. Katrina would still be the costliest. Darren23^Edits|Mail 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Percentage of black victims

"The percentage of black victims among storm-related deaths (49%) was below their proportion in the area's population (approx. 60%)."

This percentage is inaccurate. The source does not indicate that 49% of storm related deaths were black. It says that, of the number of bodies that had been released to families, 49% were black. Hundreds of bodies were not released to families, and no data is available. Couple with the accurate information on the population, this is very misleading.

This percentage seems a litte inaccurate. Is it fair to compare the number of black victims in the entire state of Lousiana to only the number of black residents in just one city (New Orleans)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ay.are.see (talk • contribs) 13:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Detectable Pro-Bush Bias

This article contains a lot of valuable information, but it is arranged in a way that does not give much weight to criticisms of Bush and the federal government, but instead is very defensive of his role in the aftermath. I don't think that this is faithful to wikipedia's standards of impartiality. After exhaustively detailing all the "positive" actions that the Bush administration took, the article then systematically dismisses all the failures. It doesn't explore the criticisms in any detail, and interjects them with facts that are quite clearly designed to undermine their validity. For example:

"Some alleged that race, class, and other factors could have contributed to delays in government response. The percentage of black victims among storm-related deaths (49%)[106] was below their proportion in the area's population (approx. 60%).[107]"

The figures given here are from a limited sample of 488 deaths, no further analysis of this data is given. A more informative article regarding the demographics of Katrina victims is found at http://cassr.as.nyu.edu/docs/IO/6024/sharkey_Katrina.pdf. African Americans were the most disproportionately negatively affected social group, behind those over 65, of which the African American elderly fared far worse than their counterparts of different skin color. The widespread use of the cited statistic in the mainstream media http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/18/opinion/18iht-edyoung.html that proportionately more Whites died as a result of Hurricane Katrina highlights the existence of prejudices which are widely claimed to have resulted in inadequate and disproportionate disaster responses http://cretscmhd.psych.ucla.edu/nola/Volunteer/EmpiricalStudies/Institutional%20discrimination,%20individual%20racism,%20and%20hurricane%20katrina.pdf. The article then goes on to cite Kanye West's allegation that George Bush doesn't care about black people. The editor has termed this "harsh", which is very subjective and not in keeping with impartiality at all. This amounts to wikipedia criticizing the criticism of George Bush and then directly following it with: "Bush later called West's remarks 'the worst moment in his presidency', feeling he was unjustly accused of racism."

After an article which seems very geared towards demonstrating how much Bush did do to assist, to have a very brief "criticisms" section, which is interspersed with efforts to dismiss these criticisms, completely fails to give equal weight to all perspectives and justly represent the widespread views about George Bush's negligence.

Overall, there is a very neatly integrated but also very perceptible bias towards George Bush in this article, which needs to be addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.246 (talk) 13:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your comments, and I removed the comment about the number of black victims being below their percentage of the population, since this is original research that is contrary to Wiki policies (reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research). Lexington50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC).

"Some alleged that race, class, and other factors could have contributed to delays in government response." With the extensive debate about the role of race and class, wikipedia has dismissed this as just the views of "some" - surely there is someone - more knowledgeable than Kanye West - who could be quoted here. There were very extensive criticisms. I also don't think that "The percentage of black victims among storm-related deaths (49%)[106] was below their proportion in the area's population (approx. 60%).[107]" has any place in the criticisms section at all - it is directly placed to undermine the criticisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.63.246 (talk) 13:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, George Bush is initially introduced as "President of the United States George W. Bush," which is not the usual wikipedia convention - using the long form of the title is intended to invest more power in his name. The article also references his asking governor Blanco to declare a state of emergency, which is commonly used by the administration as an excuse for the lackluster response. Overall, the article seems to be put together to lay the groundwork to improve Bush's legacy. Additionally, far more inches of type are directed at Blanco and Nagin (both Democrats) than at the administration. This does not reflect the reality at the time of the events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.29.22.58 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

FEMA and other response.

I understand that it was an emergency and people were desperate for help. I would not have wished such a disaster on anyone. The constant mentioning of slow response has grown old. While several people were desperate and help was needed there were A LOT of others seen on film looting. They were taking televisions, and everything else they could take. Although I do not believe in stealing, I have to say that people who were getting food that was still good is something I could understand as they and thier families had to eat. What I do not understand is why people were being shot at when trying to conduct rescue operations. It seems to me that being shot at might tend to slow down being able to respond. Ya think?? Then there all those trailers furnished form people to live in sitting empty. I have to wonder what the hell is wrong with SOME of these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.91.168.54 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Deaths

How many deaths were related back to Katrina and how many were to other things. According to the NHC Katrina only caused 1500 Deaths, with 1200 odd being direct. However we have a death total of 1800 so which is correct?.Jason Rees (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither....Totals are all over the place and will likely remain like that forever. From what I've seen, 1,464 deaths have been confirmed in Louisiana alone so their total of 1,500 is definitely too low to begin with. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Numerous deaths due to limited rescue attempts: The 2006 total was 1,836, with 1,577 in Louisiana. Many deaths had been caused in Mississippi, due to almost unbelievably high 30-foot (9.1 m) flood waters on the morning of August 29, 2005, pushing boats, boards and refrigerators 5 miles inland (8 km), where people who could swim to rooftops or treelimbs survived, and those who could not swim died. The reason only 200 died there was because the storm tide rose during the daylight hours, and many people could see to swim to rooftops or nearby trees, where they were rescued by helicopters or boats. The flood waters in New Orleans were typically just a few feet deep (rarely over 10 feet; downtown NOLA and French Quarter did not flood), and most flooding came hours later (but Chalmette near the eye, flooded fast). However, the waters around NOLA did not recede quickly, lasting for days, and people who were trapped were slowly flooded underwater, or could not last all those days trapped without rescue. The slow, shallow flood around New Orleans killed over 1,100 people, while the deep, rapid flood along the Mississippi coast killed only about 200 people, even though the populations were similar (about 450,000 residents each), and Mississippi had a much larger area to rescue people. Anyway, all those deaths were reported as due to Katrina, rather than failed levees, or botched rescues. I think the police shot 2 black people trying to cross a bridge from a "ghetto" into an upscale New Orleans area. Anyway, the lack of swift rescue in the slowly flooded areas led to many deaths. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:59, revised 14:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Category 6

Hurricane Katrina was a category 6 because if the strongest wind was 175 than it has to be a category 6 because the minimum wind speed is 174. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.194.98 (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There is no category 6, there is no upper bound on category 5. --Golbez (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

After the series of powerful storm systems of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season, a few newspaper columnists and scientists brought up the suggestion of introducing Category 6, and they have suggested pegging Category 6 to storms with winds greater than 174 or 180 mph (78 or 80 m/s); 150–155 knots (280–287 km/h).[7][15] Only a few storms of this category have been recorded, most were West Pacific and titled as super typhoons, most notably Typhoon Tip in 1979 with sustained winds of 190 mph (310 km/h).[16]

According to Robert Simpson, there are no reasons for a Category 6 on the Saffir-Simpson Scale because it is designed to measure the potential damage of a hurricane to manmade structures. If the wind speed of the hurricane is above 155 mph (249 km/h), then the damage to a building will be "serious no matter how well it's engineered".[3]

74.104.184.96 (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

• Rating storm surge separate from windspeed: Another concept is to rate the storm surge using a different system, where Katrina has been considered to be a "Category 5 storm surge" because it came ashore around high tide, with massive flood waters, even though the windspeed had plummeted to a mere 125 mph (201 km/h), due to a miraculous eyewall replacement cycle which widened and slowed the eye of the storm to milder winds just before landfall in Louisiana's south region. The slower eye is visible, as it also widened, in animations of the satellite images. Regardless of the slower windspeed, the storm surge was devastating and flattened coastal areas, indicating a need for separate storm-surge ranking, perhaps as "Cat 2 winds, Cat 5 surge" or such. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:15/14:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Five deadliest

When you click the link to deadliest hurricanes, Katrina is nowhere near the top. Where did this claim come from? 24.118.168.217 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice the disclaimer next door to the deadliest hurricane fact (in the US) - which is correct per a) the TCR and b) Blake et al 2011.Jason Rees (talk) 22:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Very old storms had more deaths due to lack of evacuation: The evacuation for Hurricane Katrina was actually very extensive, compared to 80 years earlier. Storms 200-300 years ago have poor records due to paper not lasting that many years in the southern or coastal tropical climate with mold and mildew (and termites/ants), plus many large town fires which burned city records, such as in New Orleans, Mobile, Atlanta and many other southern towns. So perhaps, many hurricanes estimated near 2,000 deaths might have been below Katrina's 1,836 total. All the other deadly storms reveal how hurricanes in these areas played a role similar to wars, or great fires, in crippling the extent of settlements. Mexico, while in the same region, had many areas of high elevation (such as Tulum) to provide more safety than the southeast U.S. except in isolated parts of coastal Alabama. Anyway, Katrina in the "top 5" does seem too high. -Wikid77 14:31/14:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Women and Hurricane Katrina

"The relative lack of status, power, and resources put many women at risk of being sexually assaulted during Hurricane Katrina" Reading through the article this sentance seems to intrude as a 'bad wikipedia' statement. It does not fit in the general flow of the article and is not Hurricane Katrina specific. Comments? Mtpaley (talk) 21:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed; while sourced, its lack of specifics adds nothing. The graf goes from specifying how many people died to, "Oh, yeah, and women were probably hurt too." I've removed it. --Golbez (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps compare female/male injuries: Consider that many women might have been injured or killed due to inability to swim to higher rooftops or trees, fast enough to avoid dangers. -Wikid77 14:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Hurricanes are not known for selecting victims on the basis of gender, race or religion. I suggest that such non-encyclopaedic comments as the above should not be allowed in Wikipaedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

Please change Katrina's second landfall's sustained wind with 125mph (200km/h) because the conversion in the article are wrong.

175.136.156.8 (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I see that the conversion is slightly off. Which one is correct, the mph or the km/h? Can you provide a source? Rivertorch (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

But I have calculated 125 mph to 200 kmh. 175.136.159.46 (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually the conversion isnt wrong, it just appears to be wrong as the conversion is knots to mph and km/h and not mph to km/h.Jason Rees (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

125 mph = 201.168 km/h. 200 km/h = 124.274 mph. Rounding should be fine as long as it's applied consistently throughout the article, but 125 mph ≠ 205 km/h by any reasonable rounding method I'm aware of. As for knots, well, 125 knots = 231.5 km/h. Am I missing something? Rivertorch (talk) 18:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You missing the fact that the landfall intensity was 105 kts which when converted means 120 mph/195 km/h.Jason Rees (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

What does that have to do with either 125mph or 200kph or 205kph, though? Just what are the actual numbers here? --Golbez (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It has everything to do with it as it is the landfall intensity that the IP is querying.Jason Rees (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It's the second landfall intensity that the IP has questioned. Rivertorch (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah i did mean the second landfall as Katrina was barely a hurricane at the first one.Jason Rees (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The article currently reads:

Katrina made its second landfall at 1110 UTC (6:10 a.m. CDT) on Monday, August 29 as a Category 3 hurricane with sustained winds of 125 mph (205 km/h) near Buras-Triumph, Louisiana.

The conversion is off, and the statement is unsourced, making it impossible to know which figure (if either) is correct. Rivertorch (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the paragraph in question, it is poorly sourced back to the NHCs tropical cyclone report. When i double checked this report this morning i looked at the graph on pages 17/18 and realised that i had made a mistake with the landfalls and had used the 3rd landfalls intensity instead of the 2nd's.Jason Rees (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Illegal immigrants cleaning the aftermath

Hello. I was doing some research and found some articles reporting on how 25,000–30 illegal immigrants helped clean up New Orleans. Where can this information go? I do not want to disrupt the articles format. Thanks. [1] [2] [3] [4] ComputerJA (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Discrepancy in fatalities

I noticed in the article that in the infobox, it says 1,833 deaths were confirmed. However, in the lead, and in a table in the article, it says 1,836 deaths were confirmed. Is this just because of competing sources? Perhaps we should say "at least 1,833 deaths were confirmed..." Safehaven86 (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I translated this article to Spanish. Therefore I cleaned it up and added new references. I also wondered which was the most reliable data. I eventually chose 1,833 because this number is given by NOAA (a proper source). Armonizador (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The discrepancy is from the fatalities listed from Kentucky and Ohio. Those are not listed in the National Hurricane Center report and I'm not sure where they came from. Kaldari (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

45% criminals? Not of 300K, and not in TX

The section claiming that 45% of 300,000 refugees had criminal backgrounds has a very bad smell. In addition to the obvious warning signs (45% of 300K? or of 20K? And was the selection of the 20K to check a random statistical check? or because criminal behavior warranted checking into their background? Circular logic.) I've checked out the dead link reference provided on archive.org (first, last and several intermediate captures of it), and the 2006 article where the 45% and 22% numbers come from was not about Texas at all, it was about 350 refugees at a single camp in West Virginia. That's a pretty egregious mischaracterization of the ref. And prior to 2008-2009 or so, the section instead said that of the 20K checks in TX, "most of the checks found very little for police to be concerned about.", so obviously an edit-warring reversal of the meaning.

http://web.archive.org/web/20061120080539/http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=5266 Flj529 (talk) 03:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2012

Katrina was not a category 3 hurricane on friday august 6 in the Guld of Mexico.

The complete NOAA KAtrina archive note that, on 8/26/2005, that Friday morning, the Hurricane was as follows

"RECENT REPORTS FROM AN AIR FORCE RESERVE UNIT HURRICANE HUNTER AIRCRAFT NOW INDICATE MAXIMUM SUSTAINED WINDS ARE NEAR 100 MPH... WITH HIGHER GUSTS. KATRINA IS NOW A CATEGORY TWO HURRICANE ON THE SAFFIR-SIMPSON SCALE. SOME STRENGTHENING IS FORECAST DURING THE NEXT 24 HOURS...AND KATRINA COULD BECOME A CATEGORY THREE OR MAJOR HURRICANE ON SATURDAY." Kennyth (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Please check the Tropical Cyclone Report (TCR) covering the tropical cyclone and not the operational advisories. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 September 2012

The region supported approximately one million non-farm jobs, but hundreds of thousands of local residents were left unemployed by the hurricane. 147.226.213.114 (talk) 19:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

This has already been stated. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The lead is flat out wrong

Mayor Nagin did warn that the levee system could be destroyed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/national/29katrinacnd.html

The Huffington Post article is clearly wrong when it says people weren't warned of that possibility. 97.125.28.119 (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Ive removed it.Jason Rees (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Why were these deleted?

Citation #95

Citation #95 referring to "Lessons Learned from Katrina" is a broken link. A working link to the same PDF follows:

http://library.stmarytx.edu/acadlib/edocs/katrinawh.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wejahddub (talk • contribs) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Citation #23 - Dead Link

Per citation #23, since the pdf of the letter is no longer available on the State of Louisiana website, the veracity of whether Blanco specifically named any parishes cannot be confirmed. 108.81.18.78 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)Sean Monahan

I have found a copy of this letter within the internet archive.Jason Rees (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Blanco's letter

After noting that Blanco defended herself by publishing her letter and calling the public's attention to the fact that the letter "specifically named 14 parishes," (search using ctrl+F for "specifically named 14 parishes" in the article), it should also be noted that Blanco (a source with a conflict-of-interest) did NOT disclose for obvious reasons, that said letter also, to quote Rice U. Professor of history Douglas G. Brinkley(need a registered user to make a ref tag using this link, please): "...neglected to specify her state's needs for federal transportation, for rescue boats, for other vital items and manpower."

i.e. Balance/neutralise the POV by letting Blanco get on her soapbox/bullypulpit and selectively quote the info in her own letter that makes her look good, but also let experts point out that she Conveniently Omits the shortcomings of said letter (which ostensibly resulted in delays of those forms of aid being delivered by the federal agency who she sent the letter to). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.252.105 (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: important but easy to wikify

"Levee Board" should link to "Orleans_Levee_Board," a major/important relevant body. 72.48.252.105 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you please specify the exact location of this. I couldn't find it. United States Man (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done – Never mind. I found and corrected the problem. United States Man (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2014

hurricane kathrina is in india and it said on news that the hurricane will come back to uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.14.6 (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2014

This request is for this sentence to be updated, in the second paragraph:

The hurricane strengthened to a Category 5 hurricane over the warm Gulf water, but weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 3 hurricane on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana.

It needs to be changed to:

The hurricane strengthened to a Category 5 hurricane over the warm Gulf water, but weakened before making its second landfall as a Category 4 hurricane with 140 mph winds on the morning of Monday, August 29 in southeast Louisiana.

Katrina was a Category FOUR hurricane on landfall, not THREE, as previously indicated! Source: Rice, D. (2005 Aug 31). Hurricane Katrina stronger than Andrew at landfall. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/weather/stormcenter/2005-08-31-Katrina-intensity_x.htm

Navyjax2 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Not done There seem to be several contradictory claims and speculation, but few actual facts; as the article states :-

On August 29, Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Buras-Triumph, Louisiana with 125 mph (205 km/h) winds, as a strong Category 3 storm. However, as it had only just weakened from Category 4 strength and the radius of maximum winds was large, it is possible that sustained winds of Category 4 strength briefly impacted extreme southeastern Louisiana.

If you want the change made you will need to establish consensus on this page first - Arjayay (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2014

Please change extratropical after August 30 to extratropical after August 31st. TropicalCyclones243 (talk) 00:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - it became extratropical at 0z August 31, so "after August 30" is accurate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: sources

I tried removing some vandalism from the table indicating how many people died as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, following the link for reference #35: "Reports of Missing and Deceased." Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. August 2, 2006. Retrieved on 2010-04-14. is a dead link. I instead used a number from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18756175 for the number of deaths in Louisiana. Now the table contradicts the text, though. Anyone have an idea of how to clean that up? Wevets (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Just made the table agree with the text using the same source, http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/lib/lib1/nhclib/mwreviews/2005.pdf although I have found other sources that suggest the death toll should include 2 in Kentucky: http://www.hpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/katrina2005.html Just decided to go with the one that seemed more authoritative. Wevets (talk) 16:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Camp Greyhound

I feel that it would benefit the article to include some information about Camp Greyhound, one of the prison camps in New Orleans. The conditions in this camp provide insight into the experience of the people caught in the chaos of the disaster. Here is some information I found, including sources.

Camp Greyhound was a temporary prison that housed more than 200 suspected looters in New Orleans until they could be transferred to other institutions. With room for 700 prisoners, the facility was guarded by officers from one of the United States' toughest prisons, the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. The station's bus terminals were converted into chain-link prison cells that could hold up to fifteen prisoners each. These prisoners were kept in conditions that included a portable toilet and military issued meals, but excluded a mattress or cot.

This camp demonstrated the reaction time and resourcefulness of the law enforcement of Louisiana. Several prisons were uninhabitable due to flooding, and the officers were forced to be flexible and work with the tools available to them. Law enforcement constructed the necessary offices of a police station in the general areas of the bus station, which included the offices of the District Attorney and the Justice Department. Camp Greyhound did have several issues with police records due to flooding, and prisoners who had committed minor infractions were kept in the same areas as those with more serious allegations. The facility was run on backup generators and outdated fingerprinting methods were used, which added to the confusion of the facility. Bairsarah (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

212.159.128.244 (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: No requested change given. Dustin (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

The source [97] cited in the "Looting & Violence Section" is incorrectly cited.

"In Texas, where more than 300,000 refugees were located, local officials ran 20,000 criminal background checks on the refugees, as well as on the relief workers helping them and people who opened up their homes. The background checks found that 45% of the refugees had a criminal record of some nature, and that 22% had a violent criminal record.[97]"

Source Link:(http://web.archive.org/web/20110928203933/http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=5266)

The source cited does NOT state that among the 300,000 refugees of Hurricane Katrina located in Texas were 45% with a criminal record etc. The article cited states that "State Police say about half of the Katrina evacuees who came to West Virginia have criminal records" referring to roughly 350 refugees who were in WEST VIRGINIA, not 300,000 in Texas.

The sentence should be removed or replaced with the statistic from the cited article.

For example: "In West Virginia where roughly 350 refugees were located, local officials took fingerprints to run criminal background checks on the refugees. The background checks found that 45% of the refugees had a criminal record of some nature, and that 22% had a violent criminal record."

NoirFrankBlanc (talk) 23:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusing table

The "Change" column in the table "Summary of tropical cyclone warnings and watches associated with Hurricane Katrina" is highly confusing. 31.51.134.71 (talk) 21:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Hurricane Katrina

Cyberbot II has detected links on Hurricane Katrina which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://ruin.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Hurricane Katrina

Cyberbot II has detected links on Hurricane Katrina which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://ruin.shutterfly.com/

  Triggered by \bshutterfly\.com\b on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2015

Change the part over the picture for this article where it says "category 5 to catergory 3". Katrina WASN'T A 5 when it made landfall, it was a 3! source: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/#katrina Crimson1981 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There are many pictures. Which one do you refer to? --Golbez (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you referring to the main image, where it says "Category 5 major hurricane" above the image? If that is the case, I must tell you that that image isn't from landfall. Dustin (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Katrina: 10 Year Anniversary

Hello, I feel a small sentence or two of the U.S. president's visit of New Orleans for the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina could be added respectfully to the Hurricane Katrina article wherever necessary. DogDrawler (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Considering that this is the decennial, would it be worth making a try at On this day...? Dustin (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Its already listed for tomorrow August 29th.Jason Rees (talk) 14:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Change in wording needed in fist sentence of "Impact" section

I-wall to the 17th Street Canal in 2005.

The first sentence in the Impact section needs a change of wording when it states: "...Katrina's storm surge caused 53 different levee breaches..." While I take it to be correct about the number of occurring breeches and their subsequent impact, it partially errs when it suggests that all of the types of compromised structures were somehow levees. "53 different levee breaches..."--not quite so. The lions' share of breaches did not happen on the earthen hurricane-protection levees alongside Lake Pontchartrain, which largely held up well, but rather on the I-walls situated inside of the various fingerlike inlets which protrude inland from the lake, such as the Industrial Canal, (or Inner Harbor Navigation Canal, IHNC), 17th Street Canal, and the London Canal, not to mention the Mississippi River–Gulf Outlet Canal (MRGO), which used to come in from the Gulf. There may have been some earthen levee breaches on some of the federal and non-federal levees in St. Bernard Parish and in parts on New Orleans East. But, we need to be accurate in out wording here, which is overgeneralized. If there had been 53 breaches in the federal levees adjacent to the lake, the destruction would have been a lot worse and would have taken much longer to repair. If those kinds of extensive "levee" breaches had taken place in that degree, the phased re-population of the city (which began as early as mid-to-late October 2005), would not have been possible on that timeline, and the recovery would have been much further delayed (i.e. rendered impossible from a standpoint of feasibility). So the statement should read "...Katrina's storm surge caused 53 different breaches to various flood protection structures around greater New Orleans..." Also, let's get a source. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected the statement, because there is no need for any debate--any knowledgeable hydrologist would agree with the change, which is more accurate than what was prior. Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

The article is very thorough and its' length proves the severity and many dimensions of the impact Hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina was 10 years ago so, there is an update that is necessary to prevent dust from forming on this chapter in American history. Some areas that need mentioning are: On the 10th Anniversary of Hurricane Katrina President Barack Obama visited the city to show his support and acknowledgement of the storm, the drastic population decrease and how residents have been displaced across the United States. Blm113 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The Data Center breaks down the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina even ten years later. The population decreased drastically , residents were displaced and the total damages were in the billions. It's very important that the citizens of the United States are aware of the aftermath of the Hurricane in 2015. Blm113 (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article edits

I added information about a study performed on evacuees that resided temporarily in Dallas, Texas, post-Katrina. This is important because the study provided information about post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder (MDD). Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26507550Marykatherineloos (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

I added information about a study performed on pregnant women from New Orleans (5-7 years after Katrina) about their exposure to the disaster. This is important because the study provided information about how birth outcomes can be poor if the mother was exposed to a natural disaster. Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26122255 Marykatherineloos (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

There was no source for a quote by Kathleen Blanco, former governor/governor at-the-time. I added a source to her quote: "They have M16s and are locked and loaded. These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will." Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4207202.stmMarykatherineloos (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

I added information about a study performed on older, long-term Baton Rouge residents and how they felt about people evacuating to Baton Rouge. This is important because many people affected by Katrina, especially New Orleans residents, evacuated to Baton Rouge either permanently, or for long periods of time. Link: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12144-015-9356-4Marykatherineloos (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)Marykatherineloos

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.flymsy.com/Katrinastory.htm

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Crime effects on refugee cities

The last sentence in the section Reestablishing governance is quite misleading in the final sentence:

" Media speculation fueled a popular perception that the displaced New Orleans residents brought a wave of crime into the communities where they relocated, however, detailed studies of crime statistics in these communities did not reveal a significant increase in violent crime.[109][110][111]"

Well, it depends on your definition of "wave of crime" and what "significant" means to statisticians vs., the actuality of living on the streets then. [I was in one of the worst affected areas of Houston throughout the time frame in question.]

Furthermore, it seems to me that the cited studies/articles do not totally agree with the Wiki article's language.

For instance, citation 109, in its discussion/conclusion says:

"Taken together, the “mixed findings” presented here suggested that Katrina did have some effect on serious crime at least in two of the three cities examined, but those effects were neither widespread (across all crime categories), nor pervasive (across the three cities)."

Let's dissect this. "Mixed findings" is misleading because although auto theft, rape and burglary were either down or insignificantly changed, murder and robbery -- probably the most frightening of violent crimes in the general population -- were up. Next, "but those effects were neither widespread ... nor pervasive." Of course they weren't because the gangsters who were relocated had no contacts in Houston to fence stolen goods and cars. They just brought guns and the propensity to do armed robberies in the parking lot of the local pharmacy and grocery stores in our once quiet neighborhood. And, of course they weren't "pervasive" because most of Houston was not part of the relocation of these refugees. The refugees mostly had no cars or convenient means of public transportation so they just walked out their apartment doors, into the single family suburban neighborhood across the street and terrorized. We still have copies of more than 100 emailed "alerts" sent out by the local HOA announcing the location and type of violent crime that happened the day or night before. I remember no such alerts prior to Katrina.

I should further note that citation 109 declares that its Houston conclusions and data are from City of Houston PD records. Apparently unknown to those authors, one of the largest concentrations of refugees and the flashpoint of crime that I personally endured was outside of the HPD jurisdiction and was primarily patrolled by the Harris County Sheriff's Department. Thus, the authors missed a significant load of data.

Citation 111 is even stronger in tone, countering the statement in this Wiki article's final sentence. It is taken from the Houston Chronicle (major Houston newspaper) and cites the actual names of New Orleans criminals, complete with their criminal histories in New Orleans, pre-Katrina, what crimes they were wanted for in Houston and a number of quotes from Houston law enforcement voicing a level of optimism that they would eventually bring it under control.

I didn't feel like paying for citation 110 so I cannot comment on it.

I don't want to edit the article if I'm being wrong headed about this, having been awfully close to and deeply affected by "the invasion" so I'm seeking alternate opinions first. Rengewwj (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Patent to Patient

There is a spelling error in the article, the word should be patents instead of patients, with respect to aircraft removing 200 patients from a hospital. I cannot edit because this article is locked. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.166.168 (talk) 10:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Environmental Impacts

I added this paragraph: Katrina also produced massive tree loss along the Gulf Coast, particularly in Louisiana'a Pearl River Basin and among bottomland hardwood forests. Before the storm the standard mortality rate for the area's trees was 1.9%, but this interval increased to 20.5% by the end of 2006.[104] Delayed mortality as an effect of the storm continued with rates up to 5% until 2011.[105] This significant loss in biomass caused greater decay and an increase in carbon emissions. For example, by 2006 the decreased biomass in bottomland hardwood forests contributed an amount of carbon which equated to roughly 140% of the of the net annual U.S. carbon sink in forest trees.[106]

All of my sources are peer-reviewed. The paragraph includes information on loss of tree life because of Hurricane Katrina, and focuses specifically on the Louisiana Pearl River Basin. The most significant loss of trees in any area affected by the storms was among bottomland hardwood forests, another focus of my edit. Along with the statistics of loss of tree life, I include information and more statistics on how this increased carbon emissions for the area.

Careschroeder (talk) 20:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Careschroeder I deleted two of your three references, they were worthless session specific running through a University proxy server URL. Please re-add them as proper references, or eventually someone will delete your addition as un-referenced. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2017 displacement figures lacking

Under the economic effects there is a discussion of displacement but fails to mention who was displaced which can be a crucial discussion point in this topic. Consider Adams, Vincanne et al. 2009. “Chronic Disaster Syndrome: Displacement, Disaster Capitalism, and the Eviction of the Poor from New Orleans” American Ethnologist 36:4, 615-636. Whatisthismagic (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Whatisthismagic (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  05:56, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Year of the storm in opening sentence

I have put the year of the storm back into the first sentence, but removed some extra words from my previous attempt to do this.I hope it reads better. The reason I looked at this page to begin with was to find the year of the storm, and, as I think others will do likewise, I think it's important that the year of the storm is in the very first sentence.Boleslaw (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)