Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of Hurricane Katrina

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

Interleaf hurricane and political timeline

[edit]

Can I urge that we combine the two timelines in this page into one, so for each date we have a list of hurricane events followd by an indented list of political events. This would allow for a better juxtapositioning of information. It would also allow us to interleaf hurricane photos with political photos. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I second this motion and recommend a re-name like The Katrina Disaster Timeline, to accomodate the fact that it is not only about the hurricane itself but also about the people affected and the political implications.
Above posted by user 84.137.135.124
I also think interleafing is essential because of the great temptation of people to insert political stuff in the top, non-political in the bottom, and the fact that some events are a bit of both.
At least for the first few dates, it looks easier to make sure the top section has all the political section stuff. AlMac|(talk) 18:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Political is not just Bush

[edit]

If demand continues to have what actually happened as opposed to the political dimension, then it ought to be renamed, because it is POV to focus on Bush without context of State & Local, and the responsibilities of some government agencies to act without waiting on commands from above.

Perhaps the title could reflect other responsibilities of leadership, what's going on with them when this disaster unfolding, how high a relative priority they appear to be giving this. AlMac|(talk) 18:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Predictability of Levees at Risk

[edit]

Currently the first section is about the Hurricane when it first formed, was seen coming, etc. Would it be appropriate to add a section in front of that about history that is relevant to disaster preparedness for the nation and the geographic area affected by Hurricane Katrina, such as Hurricane Pam and efforts to improve the levee system? AlMac|(talk) 18:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

this link and its dated sublinks should be useful for this article's progress. Kingturtle 08:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this timeline which lists all that was *said* on press conferences, perhaps we could work that into the article Sp4rk33 11:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Such timelines can help us find useful info, but then we should try to go to primary sources, in case of distortion at the secondary write-ups. Some government agenices publish what was said on THEIR web sites, which also would be good places to direct people who want to see more about what we might be summarizing that was new as of the time of the press conference. AlMac|(talk) 18:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whitewash?

[edit]

I noticed that the article seemed a bit lighter than when I last looked at it: Heres the diff. Seems to be some whitewashing regarding earlier dates. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Katrina_timeline&diff=23231890&oldid=22893537 -St|eve 21:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline accuracy

[edit]

Why is there an entry for Tuesday, August 30 at 1:30am which starts "CNN reports that the levee on the 17th Street Canal...suffered a two city-block wide breach."?

Shouldn't this more correctly be placed under Monday, August 29, since that is obviously when the breech occurred?

http://www.nola.com/hurricane/t-p/katrina.ssf?/hurricane/katrina/stories/083005catastrophic.html

What is more valuable in the timeline? When something actually occurred, or when it was reported by CNN?

Both can be given.

additional timeline

[edit]

There is a time line here.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/katrina-timeline

If history is this hard to record today, with the technology of video cameras, news media, other recording devices, cell phones, the internet.......

Imagine how hard it would have been even 20 years ago. Or 100.

Recorded History simply cannot truely be accurate. Too many people have a vested interest in the official story. We citizens need to act as local historians whenever important events fall in our lap. It should be our primary duty as citizens.

Todo

[edit]

A timeline like this is nearly worthless without extensive references. — jdorje (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of numbers (almost 100) that I assume are references, but clicking on them gives me error messages.

An additional (bigger) problem is the "Political timeline" which, at a glance, seems to be just half of the regular timeline taken out and put into a separate section. Did George Bush really authorize the NHC to upgrade Katrina to a hurricane? This section must be merged back in and the POV parts excised. — jdorje (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

new stork times

[edit]

"This is a rubbish site"

new stork times

Article cleanup

[edit]

The article has been cleaned up. Mainly checking & reformatting references, and combining the regular & political timelines into one, based on previous discussions on this talk page. Dr. Cash 07:14, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A lot less useful

[edit]

I have a printed copy of this topic from the end of January. I noticed that a lot of information, particularly with regard to "Aftermath" events on Tuesday, August 30 were removed. The resulting article is now a lot less useful.

Why was so much information, particularly from the day after landfall, purged from the article? Was it inaccurate? Or were there problems finding references?

For an August 30 timeline of events I find the Shreveport Time's timeline much more useful: http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051211/NEWS01/512110314/1002/NEWS

If you haven't done so, pls check against this resource:

[edit]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=106&topic_id=22805

More than 15,000 words of info and reports from all kinds of sources found on the 'net as the events were actually unfolding, not including the additional info provided at the links included . . . some of which info was, subsequently deleted from the 'net since it was potentially embarrassing or for whatever reason . . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Auralee (talk • contribs) 06:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unsourced comment

[edit]

This comment does not belong in this article without a referenced source:

"As of September 19, the official death toll stood at 973. Mississippi had refused to raise its death toll above 218, or to explain why. Thousands of dead in Mississippi and Louisiana have not been counted, nor have the bodies been retrieved."

Econofire (talk) 12:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three landfalls in Louisiana?

[edit]

Hi. I have added a citation needed tag to the statement. The TCR makes no direct mention of three landfalls in Louisiana. However, it did say initial landfall in Louisiana near Buras and final landfall on the Louisiana-Mississippi border, but it did not say if it made any landfalls in between. I'm not sure if passing a kilometre over water and then part of its eye making landfall, part of it always over land would count as a landfall, because the coastline is not constant. Although figure 1 in the TCR seems to show three landfalls, it is very difficult to tell for sure if it does because the location circle and the track covers part of it. I have left the information in the article, becasue it is plausible, but I think this might be slightly OR because there is no published direct mention of three landfalls, unless we can get another written source. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 16:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evacuation orders and hurricane landfall

[edit]

When (if ever) did the federal government order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans? Is this even something they have authority to do? I ask this because the main basis of a lot of anti-Republican criticism is that the feds delayed their (supposed) evacuation order.

When did the state and/or city order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans? I ask this, because many survivors said they based their decision on whether (and when) to leave on the city and state's evacuation "requests".

The question is who is to blame (beside the people who actually chose to gamble their lives) for not getting people out in time. Around 2,000 people died. Whose fault is this?

Or, more to the point, since this is supposed to be a neutral article, whose fault do the various advocates say it is? We all know that Democrats blame Bush, but what about those who blame the governor and the mayor? Shouldn't we describe this viewpoints as well? (Or should we take sides?) --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no Federal order of evacuation. (BTW, in my own observation, much of the criticism against the Bush administration-- including, at least here in South Louisiana, by Republicans -- was over the lacking/tardy response after the disaster began.) Earlier versions of the article had details of Louisiana State and City of New Orleans calls for evacuation; if they are not in the current version of the article, check the article history.
Certainly the article should adhere to NPOV. Some comprehensive declaration "Fault" or "Blame" would probably be inappropriate, unless some scientific/multipartisan study has made specific declarations using those terms. I see that you appear to be in the "blame the victims first" camp from your "question" "who is to blame (beside the people who actually chose to gamble their lives) for not getting people out in time". Would you use the phrase "people who actually chose to gamble their lives" for everybody every day?
A point to ponder that might be relevant: Does any other city or region of the USA have good/superior plans to evacuate 100% of their population on 48 hours notice? Cheers, Infrogmation (talk) 01:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if it seems like I'm in any particular camp. That would be due to sloppy writing on my part. Not that my own opinions are relevant to this discussion of how to improve the article, but I personally disagree with blaming the victim, which is the mark of insanity (see also Bullying). I'll try to make my comments more neutral in the future, thanks!
I have read several references to a "Federal order of evacuation". Again, due to sloppiness or haste, I didn't write down where I saw these references. They were either in Wikipedia articles, or in advocacy articles (Washington Post maybe?) in the US or UK press. For those concerned about the best way to ensure public safety as disaster looms, it would be good to clarify which level of goverment has authority or responsibility to order an evacuation.
  • I read one study that said it was because of a conflict between local and federal evacuation orders that many people figured it would be safe to "ride out" the hurricane.
  • I recall reading in at least one place that someone placed a great deal of the blame for the 2,000 deaths on the federal goverment being late to order a mandatory evacuation. This, of course, contradicts your comment above that there never was one.
So if we're going to work together on this, maybe you could help me track down the sources which assert that (a) the federal government ordered an evacuation (b) what authority they had to do so (c) when they issued the order; along with (d) any sources which deny that the federal government ordered an evacuation.
Can you help me dig through the article history to bring back the answer to this question: When did the state and/or city order a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans?
As to the "blame" question in general, is there a common understanding that defying a government order to evacuate gives a person a degree of responsibility for any harm that comes to him during a disaster? If so, then the question of whether (and when) each of the 3 relevant levels of government issued such an order is relevant. Also, there's the well-known "farmer in a flood" joke. [1] How much help can a person be offered (which he also refuses), before it's his own fault if he becomes a victim? (This is an attempt to distinguish between unfair victim blaming and commonsenses notions of negligence or irresponsibility. Again, not taking sides but merely wondering aloud.) --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is not the place to air out differences

[edit]

This article has portions that state something [and then in brackets say that's actually not true], yet neither statement is sourced. No matter what you know to be correct, the key to keeping WP credible is only posting verifiable facts, and citing them if possible. For example, whether a certain use of the military is illegal under whatever act, the article itself is NOT the place to debate the issue. Unless a neutral secondary source or some noteworthy public figure makes such a claim, it's only your opinion, a novel synthesis of existing facts, and not welcome on WP. This article needs tons of work and dedication to get it back in shape.Dcs002 (talk) 05:55, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page necessary?

[edit]

The information covered in this article -- which is poorly sourced as is -- is largely covered in Hurricane Katrina's main article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have a feeling that if we can clean the article up and decide exactly what is and isnt notable to be included, then the importance of such and article may come obvious. It would also help with cleaning up the main Hurricane Katrina article.Jason Rees (talk) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no. Please see merger discussion here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TD Ten or TD Twelve

[edit]

The article has a sentence that reads:

While the normal standards for numbering tropical depressions in the Atlantic indicate that the old name/number is retained when a depression dissipates and regenerates, satellite data indicated that a second tropical wave combined with Tropical Depression Twelve north of Puerto Rico to form a new, much more advanced system, which was then designated as Tropical Depression Twelve.

It seems the bolded Twelve should in fact be Ten? Or am I missing something here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawksocc8 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Timeline of Hurricane Katrina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=1243324963"