Template:Talkheaderlong Template:Todo1

I, Titoxd, award the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar to all those who have helped maintain this article clean from vandalism and junk. 04:02, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Notes:

• Please Don't Feed The Trolls
• As a courtesy, editors may use {{unsigned}} to help mark unsigned comments
• Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. See archives: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05

How come there has been no mention of Ham radio in this article in the Response section 63.210.193.178 01:12, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the "New" from "New Orleans" in the table of deaths per county/parish for consistency. Seeing "New Orleans" in a table that specified East Baton Rouge (the parish containing the city of Baton Rouge) struck me as jarring, the other states were already broken down solely by county, and the link was already pointing to the Orleans Parish article. David Iwancio 2005-08-31T14:23Z

If you aren't here to help an encyclopedia, read, don't write. This is not a blog. WAS 4.250 15:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Remember what we are doing here. We are building a free encyclopedia for every single person on the planet. We are trying to do it in an atmosphere of fun, love, and respect for others. We try to be kind to others, thoughtful in our actions, and professional in our approach to our responsibilities." Jimbo Wales 16:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC) [1] WAS 4.250 15:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever edited away may comment: "America the land of the dead and the stupids! Worse than the Balkan or the 3rd world. blah-blah"

please note that CNN website startpage says very exactly:

"It's like being in a Third World country" at this link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WEATHER/08/31/katrina.people/index.html

The associated image shows an afro-american woman crying next to a corpse in wrapped in white linen, obviously alluding to Black Africa impression.

If CNN says the same as me, how can I be a troll?

Face the truth, America made a very poor impression of itself by Katharina management. All the cold war rhetoric "we don't need civil defence, we have enough nukes to deter enemy" now fired back. Mother nature cannot be stopped with nukes, and USA was unprepared to disaster avoidance and remedy. All the fed, state, posse, county and village "authorities" are now blocking each other over power feud and thus rescue is in disarray.

Anybody who has grown up behind the iron curtain is utterly suprised how can a country be so ineffective, so lacking in coherent response. Shouldn't FEMA hand control everything down to the smallest sewing needle that fell in the water to make sure rescue progresses the fastest and damn the constitution until October? America is mega-rich in resources, it should cope with minimal loss of life. But all the liberty ideas now just lead to animosity and inefficiency. Many die because nobody obeys. You need to learn fast, because the chinese commie may attack you in 25 years and you will fall if disorganized, just like the frenchies did in 1940! Hear, hear!

Yeah, but you see...the chances of another country invading the U.S. and then returning with one invading soldier left alive is almost zero. The people of the U.S. would come at an invading force with every gun, pitchfork and toilettank cover they could find.--MONGO 20:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Warning to everybody else: Do not feed this troll. Attempting to reason with insanity is insane. ~~ N (t/c) 14:45, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He is very rude in such a sorrow time. But the civil defence issue (or the lack thereof) is valid. The troubling aspects of US "gun touting loneman" culture are undeniable (at least to foreign observers) and the idea of mainland China coming to you in a few more decades (it's more like 50 years) is not as tomclancy as it used to be some 6 years ago. What that liberal zombie network CNN says about Karina and thridworldliness shall not suppress Fox's faithful reporting. Offer your prayers for those in peril. God bless America! +

Nicktpar, this just shows that you are a troll. See internet troll Part of this is indeed Encyclopedic Material as the response of the authorities is very important. I have no doubt you think they are great, and you may be one of them. Whether you think anyone who points this out is a troll, or you delete articles you don't like is up to you. There will always be people like you who support the authorities right or wrong, in order to get ahead themselves. Leistung 15:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are guidelines for article talk pages: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#What may talk pages be used for?. In particular, Talk pages are not for general chatter; please keep discussions on talk pages on the topic of how to improve the associated article and Talk pages are also not strictly a forum to argue different points of view about controversial issues. There is no encyclopedic merit to the above rant or the responses to it, and there's no reason for it to be discussed here. android79 15:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Android, so you say. I think that the reponse of the authorities is highly relevant. But you want to suppress this. Well done! I am assuming that if I or anyone adds anything about this in the main article, you will cry "rant" and "troll" yet again, and immediately delete it, as you usually do. I do not notice you suggesting anything for the article. Only being negative. All you are doing is laying down your version of the law. Leistung 16:11, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to revert anything in the actual article that wasn't simple vandalism. Go ahead and add verifiably-sourced, NPOV edits regarding the response to the emergency by the authorities. Material on this is most certainly relevant, but there is no meaningful material in the above rant. It is merely an attempt to provoke a negative response. I haven't suggested anything for the article because I'm just now catching up on news coverage of the hurricane. android79 16:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Can someone update the status preferably with links ? It would be nice to have confirmation they survived Katrina.

They're in underground salt mines, there is little question they would "survive", although it's possible that the Louisiana facility experienced surface damage. There are other locations in Texas, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:18, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Bayou Choctaw facility near Baton Rouge was at risk. The other three (near Freeport, TX; Winnie, TX; and Lake Charles, LA) were completely unaffected. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on with the "Troll" line near the top of the talk page. It's good advice, especially with a major event like this generating a lot of comments and potentially malicious visitors, so I'm putting it back for now, unless a concensus somehow decides it's not good to remind people of that (I don't see how it would be bad!). AySz88^-^ 16:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I removed it as the name suggests "troll" is a highly insulting name, meaning something like "scum" or "filth". See article Internet trolls. I personally have been referred to as a "troll" by my enemies on this discussion. Usually if you say something against the authorities, someone will immediately protect them and label the "offender" a "troll". Obviously you are trying to protect the community against me by reinstating the message. Why not say "Don't feed the Commies" too. Leistung 16:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who has called you a troll? android79 16:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I was called it by a few people. The name "troll" just annoys the hell out of people, and detacts from sensible discussion. A warning like "Don't feed the trolls" just annoys people who are not "trolls" and the actual "trolls" will be encouraged more. It just means that more effort is displaced from building a good article. It also encourages those who want to crush a good argument. If you call some a "troll", then they don't exist, and you can delete all of their work. Leistung 17:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Who, exactly? android79 17:13, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Dream Guy is the main one. There are others, but I can't be bothered looking them up. Leistung 17:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I meant on this talk page. Nevermind, then. android79 17:28, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The complaining about being labeled a troll would work better if the person involved would refrain for further trolling while complaining... and the earlier comments were severely undeniably trollish, as identified by several people. It's sad how many people get suckered in everytime he goes trolling, especially with the earlier warnings. DreamGuy 20:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I put that reminder up there, and I put it there because, primarily, yes, of Leistung. After 20 years on Usenet, I don't have too much trouble identifying a troll. If he doesn't like it, I'm sorry, but this is not the time, nor the forum, for the communications he sees fit to inject, whether they're heartfelt and sincere or not.
--Baylink 23:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Guy and Baylink, as least you are now out in the open. I could have been a little more diplomatic at the outset. However, you, Dream Guy, can never ever forget.

For other decent people out there, is very difficult to phrase things right, as many including myself can see aviodable disasters happening. My main point is that America has had few really bad disasters to learn from and I don't know how to put this correctly.

But you two are both negative and nasty. Statements which you personally disagree with, you label me a "scum" or "troll", which are the same thing. Your sort are like schoolyard bullies who always cause trouble. Leistung 07:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arguing about who's troll and who's not is completely out of the point here. This page serves as a discussion for Hurricane Katrina. --Spiritual 12:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Working largely from one NYT article, I cobbled together the framework of a Response section, which I expect will quickly expand. I'm looking to articles like 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake for inspiration, here. I'm not expecting this article to perfectly rival that one, but the US impact is going to be considerable and I wouldn't be surprised if this article also spawns sub-articles. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Restored above which was accidentally deleted amid the kerfuffle. --Dhartung | Talk 16:30, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have friend right outside LA and said "it could like those hurricanes in the early 1900's??" It is very sad situation.

Posted by 66.170.216.73 10:10, 31 August 2005 at article with misformatted name, which I have redirected here. - choster 16:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am searchin for my brother John Musser. He stayed in Slidell, La during the hurricane. If you have info please email me at marciamwest@hotmail.com. Thanks for any info about Lakewood subdivison or St. Margaret Mary School, too. My friend here in Houston wants info about Country Club in Covington, LA.

Does anyone know for sure if the SDI's HAARP giant plasma emitter grid was running during the Katie crisis? Some (many) people seriously think it can modify weather large-scale so as to control global geopolitics. And Katrina did change course suddenly by a full 90degrees in the middle of the mexican gulf.

A conspiracy theory section will be inevitable for the article sooner or later. Local religious commentators on small CATVs already claim it was done by YHWH to punish ungodly people (proof: all the casinos east of Vegas were so perfectly destroyed, remember that gambling is an utmost crime against God, who does not play the dice)! Considering how widespread religous conservatism is in USA, such ideas will surface in the States for sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 16:59, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

All of the casinos east of Las Vegas were destroyed? The casinos in Tunica MS, Baton Rouge, Cherokee NC, Atlantic City NJ, and various other locales in the east might disagree with you. But we didn't really expect logical thought in this section, did we. --Golbez 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

O no! Not the Casinos! Please let them be safe! Leistung 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I think the anonymous poster above you was speaking sarcastically about "all" of the casinos east of Vegas being "destroyed." jcomp489

It didn't even manage to destroy the casinos in other parts of the state of Louisiana. -- Cyrius|✎ 13:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was a bit premature. Katrina in New Orleans is more serious than I first thought, due mainly to the situation with the levees. Sometimes the aftermath is worse than the main event... Is the levee break down to Act or God, Incompetence, Bad Design or just plain Bad Luck? Anyway I hope all is uphill from here on. Leistung 17:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words. --Golbez 17:23, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think the levee break will fall under the catagory of Act of God. The simple fact is that they were not (and possibly cannot be) built to handle stresses of this magnatude. For all our techonological advancement, Mother Nature can be a real bitch when she puts her mind to it. Donovan Ravenhull 17:31, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm not an engineer however, and it's just early speculation, but if their's any human design that could be pointed out it would have to be settling in New Orleans in the first place. And that, to me, would seem a bit extreme jcomp489

The levees are primarily designed for protecting against a hypothetical "100 year" Mississippi flood. Given the below-sea-level elevation of much of New Orleans, and the unpredictability of hurricanes, it would be impossible to protect it from all scenarios. --Dhartung | Talk 19:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Steve Gregory said, this is turning into the "slow motion version" of the worst case scenario for New Orleans. AySz88^-^ 17:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No reports of deaths in Hancock County, Mississippi? Or have they just not been able to get out there to search as of yet? Mike H (Talking is hot) 17:36, August 31, 2005 (UTC) I say they have not gotten to that stage yet.

Somewhere I heard that they are currently looking and hadn't found anyone dead in Hancock County yet. It is a mostly rural county, with no town larger than 10,000, and hence it would be much easier to evacuate, and CNN yesterday said that they reportedly managed to get 99% of the population out. I wouldn't expect nearly as many dead in Hancock (or Jackson) County as in Harrison County or Greater New Orleans. CrazyC83 19:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu (news, bio, voting record) told reporters she had heard at least 50 to 100 people were dead in New Orleans." I think we should add it into the totals.[2]

Can't understand what she meant by "at least 50 to 100 people", if she just said "at least 50 people" it would make our update much easier ... --Vsion 18:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"at least 50 to 100" = the bare minimum being in the range of 50 to 100. I don't think it should be in the article, really, because "she heard" isn't the best source, even if she is a Landrieu, farting sunshine or whatnot. Mike H (Talking is hot) 18:10, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think its false however CNN reports from AP that the mayor of New orleans say "that possibile hundrends prehaps thousands may died." So it is not confirmed but it is showing what way we are heading and i hope not but look very likely and very possibile with the epic flooding in that city.

The two words "to 100" doesn't really add any information, since the least is still 50. Anyway, from the way she said it, this sounds like an official count on confirmed death; and the articles are updated. On the other hand, the mayor used the word "... may ...", so this is a speculation/projection figure, not confirmed count. --Vsion 18:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As this article becomes longer and older, people may want more of a brief overview of the storm (as an encylopedia usually is). I purpose that their is enough information here to split the article into Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Katrina damages, Hurricane Katrina looting, Hurricane Katrina Response or some varaition of.--mitrebox 18:41, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is already Damage to infrastructure by Hurricane Katrina, Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, and other pages in Category:Hurricane Katrina. I'm fairly sure that as the article grows, things will be split as appropriate, but not yet (since the event's still taking place). (Are subpages appropriate for Wikipedia articles?) AySz88^-^ 18:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

No, subpages are only appropriate for User space, or for temporary use (say, when editing an article wholesale). I wouldn't break out individual pages unless they represented very actively edited, overfull sections, though. The Category:2004 Indian Ocean earthquake shows "Effect of ..." articles for each country affected, and one "Humanitarian response" article, a Timeline, and a list of countries affected. We can probably handle Katrina in fewer articles, despite the higher availability of news services and potential editors. --Dhartung | Talk 19:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody created a ridiculously detailed to-do list, e.g. Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Ontario. Most of these were removed. The only areas that will conceivably need full articles are the three most-affected states (LA, AB, MS) and a general article for other places affected. Well, maybe FL deserves its own, too, so I left it in. Then there were the "topic" articles. I refactored the proposed articles to Social effects and Economic effects. We shouldn't create articles willy-nilly unless there is a demonstrated need, e.g. a section of the main article becoming unwieldy. Otherwise it's a potential stub that could just confuse readers and duplicate effort. Think carefully before splitting, or suggesting a split. I'm not even convinced the remaining list makes sense. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on tornados it states there are no deaths reported yet, but in the section on Georgia it reports a fatal tornado. Which report is true? Chuck Y 18:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 deaths in Georgia were indirect deaths related to traffic accidents partially caused by the tornado (and probably the slick roads as well). Notice in the GA death numbers they are shown as such. CrazyC83 19:10, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering hurricane damages and economic loss may total more than 1yr budget of US military spending, may this bring an early end to Iraq occupation as something that cannot be afforded any more? Uncle Sam will have to cough up huge sums to rebuild everything and the republican riches certainly do not want to pay more taxes. Leaving Iraq would save near a billion bucks a day. Is this to be discussed under "other effects"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.70.32.136 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No crystal ball, please. --Vsion 18:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Associated Press:

Hundreds -- maybe thousands -- may be dead in New Orleans

The mayor said today that Hurricane Katrina probably killed thousands of people in New Orleans. 'We know there is a significant number of dead bodies in the water,' and others dead in attics, Mayor Ray Nagin said. Asked how many, he said: 'Minimum, hundreds. Most likely, thousands.'" [3]

Almost unbelievable. --tomf688^<TALK> 19:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Incredible, and even sadder that it was just as many had expected e.g. Dr. Suhayda of LSU. That, and the Tsunami combined to have the most forceful evacuation warnings I've ever heard from officials, and we still had many casualties. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to be interesting to see what the actual figures are. Of course, we're not going to even begin to get accurate estimates for weeks yet. These things are hard to guess, because a lot of initial, speculative reports can be wildly inaccurate in any direction. jcomp489

This looks bad. Maybe the US can now get aid/help from other countries! Leistung 19:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However these are very likely due to the amount of flooding in New Orleans.

I added the mayor's name and link to the "thousands dead" fatality count in the article. I think its a huge leap from what was being reported before, so I'd say a source is pretty much required.

Both sources cited use "millibars" for these pressures. There is no reason for this silly pseudo-SI nonsense. There is no reason to use units so unfamiliar that whoever added them cannot even spell them correctly so that the links work, and even sometimes spelled them with goofy and improper capitalization, something that is also frequent especially with this unfamiliar and little-used prefix. If you want to use the SI pascals, better to use the units used in weather reports in Canada, and the units familiar to many people from their use in other fields such as chemistry and physics: kilopascals. Gene Nygaard 20:20, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your concern is? If you're talking about a cited news agency using mbars, I'm afraid we can't do anything about that. Or do you mean we should use stuff like 90200 kilopascals instead of 902 mbar? I'm pretty sure that meteorology uses mbar for atmospheric pressure instead of Pascals. AySz88^-^ 22:04, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

The Met Office website here in the UK [4] says that hectopascals are used scientifically, but that millibars are still used in UK and US public forecasts. (Canada uses kilopascals in its forecasts, as mentioned above.) I'd say that "millibars" would be much more readily understood than "hecto/kilopascals" here in Britain, and if that's also the case in the US then that's probably more important than strict adherence to any particular system. Using the SI system is a good thing in general, but not at disproportionate cost to clarity. Loganberry (Talk) 22:21, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PDFTT. The reports from the pertinent formal reporting agency conform to common meterological practice in the country affected; that is the protocol we should use in the article. Parentheticalized translations to units commonly used in public reports in other countries would be fine as well, IMHO, but I can't see any reason for translating into arbitrary "scientifically correct" units.
--Baylink 23:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the EU it is e.g. "1014 hektopascal" when the weather is told on the news radios. However, as long as it is metric, one should not mind it, it is a waste of time. The enemy is the customary/imperial world and metric infighting is bad, because it hurts the crusade against ancien base12 measurements. In fact metric infighting is used by the customary clan as a weapon against metrication. When the whole world is metricated we can move on to educate people to use only SI-proper expressions. The mBar/hPa issue is moot until CNN keeps reporting that much of Orleans is under 7 to 15 feet of water... 195.70.32.136 07:37, 1 September 2005 (UTC) Tamas Feher <etomcat@freemail.hu>[reply]

It is a bad idea to move this entire section away. Furthermore, no summary is provided here. We should instead move the section on Hurricane Katrina effects on oil industry, because it is an isolated, well-defined topic. --Vsion 20:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the following warning to the top of this article as an HTML comment:

Anyone vandalizing this article may be blocked for up to 48 hours without further warning. 

The same warning (with "will" instead of "may") appears at the top of George W. Bush, another frequently-vandalized article. I think this is a good thing for such a high-profile article. If you object and remove it, please discuss your reasons here. FreplySpang (talk) 20:38, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I support this, I personally don't like to block without warning, however I think that we should give vandals fair warning that we're annoyed at constantly having to revert this article and may at our discretion block them for vandalizing it. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:42, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Freply. It is indeed a special case.

By the way, Vsion, In my 3+ years of experience on this wiki, I have invariably found that splitting up a large, rapidly changing article helps. Writers can focus better on smaller chunks. Also, your watchlist can let you know which sections are getting edited. It's also a great defense against vandalism. After the editing flurry slows down - say, mid September - I will favor re-integrating the parts into one long narrative. Uncle Ed 20:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agreed with splitting, done that myself also. But why not move the auxillary topics such as "preparation" and "effect on oil industry". I'm afraid this article is losing focus. --Vsion 20:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: This article is for readers NOW, not for editors, not for mid-september. Please help readers to get to their concern quickly. The link to Hurricane Katrina effects by region is very unclear to those not familar with wikipedian writing, unlike the title Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. --Vsion 21:03, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be written with future readers in mind, as a repository of human knowledge we should expect to still be around 100 years from now, and not a news report? *Dan* 01:01, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the warning to GWB's article, but I didn't here because I figured most people vandalizing GWB would be more familiar with Wiki, whereas most people vandalizing here would be ignorant newbies, and furthermore, this article will get a LOT more legit edits from newbies than GWB will, and I didn't want to scare them away. --Golbez 21:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. I don't think it will have that effect, but that's just my guess. FreplySpang (talk) 22:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

This page cites the Army Corps of Engineers as saying that floodwalls failed, not levees. There isn't even a Wikipedia article on floodwalls, so there's some major revising to do if editors need to change every mention of failed levees to failed floodwalls. AySz88^-^ 20:45, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the distinction is only made by engineers? I don't know the difference, but many places are calling them levees, so I don't think we need to be in a rush to fix it. Friday (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction is the earthen bank of the levee with a steel/concrete floodwall atop. It's definitely part of the same flood prevention system, so I'd say that a subsection in levee would be sufficient. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 20:54:06, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

There is a real distinction between a levee and a floodwall. Not all floodwalls are on top of levees, and most levees don't have floodwalls. This image (may be deleted soon for copyright problems) of the breach at the 17th street canal shows that it is indeed a floodwall not a levee. A levee is a gravity structure, a floodwall takes bending stresses. Floodwalls are much narrower in cross-section. Maybe this is just jargon - I always find it strange that people tend to dismiss the distinctions that engineers make as jargon, but they don't take issue with a botanist making a distiction between pine trees and spruce trees. Toiyabe 21:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dismissing the distinction (I'm an engineer), but I am saying that granularity can be taken too far. Whether or not the generic flood protection device takes bending stresses has little encyclopedic impact on the failure of said generic flood protection device, even if it's of critical importance to the engineers doing damage assessment. — Lomn | Talk / RfC 22:36:01, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

It's not an issue of granularity, because the one is not a sub-set of the other. I agree that to most folks it's an unimportant distinction. The question is whether Wikipedia should use the term that most media outlets are using, or the term that the Army Corps of Engineers uses. I would argue for the latter. Right now this article is more journalistic then encyclopedic, but with all the editing activity right now there's no point in addressing that yet. Toiyabe 23:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Wed 31 Aug 05 ABC calls Katrina "A National Crisis", any way that phrase can fit in the content?Kyle Andrew Brown 22:52, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the media sensationalizing it. A good friend of mine lost her house in it, so I definitely consider it a tragedy, but until all 48 Continental States have been damaged, this can not be considered "national." -Josh, 12:13 AM EST, September 1st, 2005

The economic effects may very well cause a full national crisis (oil crisis, tax raises needed) or a company in LA may need to lay off all workers because its main business partner in New Orleans was totally destroyed. The economy may stop growing for some time due to huge costs. It will affect the world economy badly. There should be changes in US law and policing (more autoritarian) because of all the anarchy we have seen on live TV. You can't afford that in post-9/11 times, but people will resist taking away more freedoms, it will be a political crises. If aid from the north does not pour in as thick as expected, even the confederate sentiment may have a big revival. You don't need a gypsy fortune-teller to foresee these. It is already a national crisis.

"There should be changes in US law and policing (more autoritarian) because of all the anarchy we have seen on live TV." Making massive changes to a political structure while under enormous stress is never a good idea.

here's a bloomberg.com piece with a bunch of good categorized factual rollup data.
--Baylink 23:15, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt these references are required or necessary to be displayed in the article. The text on their page regarding using images reads: "If any of the images provided here are to be displayed elsewhere (internet, publications, etc.), please reference CIMSS. Thank you." "Please reference" is not the same as "you must reference under penalty of law".

The images are creditted on the image description page anyways, which is their purpose. We don't need to clutter up the main articles with courtesy links. --tomf688^<TALK> 00:24, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Don't do that. I don't remember the exact details, but I believe CIMSS (or someone) asked us to add the courtesy link. --Titoxd 00:30, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wisconsin is pretty partial to having their material acknowledged in the public forum. The legislature gets involved with the University letting things slip by. I would respect a Wisconsin notice for attribution.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:29, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do acknolwedge the source of images, on the image description page. If we are required to attribute the source of the image, it becomes a speedy deletion candidate under CSD I3. --fvw* 01:32, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

While the US usually is a giver and not a reciever of help, and certainly can help itself, I'd like to know about international reaction, attention and help. Any information. Anything worthy to put in an article? — Sverdrup 00:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did read that President of Venezuela offered to send oil etc. Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/afx/2005/08/31/afx2199612.htmlKyle Andrew Brown 01:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Canada's offered help, but I'll have to dig up the link --YoungFreud 03:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At least one Canadian search and rescue team is already in New Orleans. Pollinator 03:47, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Are you talking about this group? [5]. I have heard something now that CTV's now reporting that Homeland Security has blocked Canadian supplies and personnel into the affected region, although the Canadian Red Cross has been allowed into the area. If I get a substantied report from CTV, I'll update.--YoungFreud 04:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Russians, via the UN, offer to help, but the American ambassador says "no, thanks". [6].--YoungFreud 04:25, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, according to Andrea Mitchell of CNN, the US has declined aid from Canada, Germany, Venezuela, and other unamed countries.--YoungFreud 05:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the word on the international humanitarian aid, from Reuters courtesy Wired, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said earlier on Wednesday 10 to 12 foreign governments have offered general assistance to the United States to deal with the hurricane aftermath but no decision had been made about how these offers might be used.[7]

humor is important to history but I understnad your not wanting this to be on the Hurricane Katrina page.

http://www.illwillpress.com/kat.html

any idea where it should go?

Not in Wikipedia. This is not encyclopedic. --Titoxd 01:20, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the "this land is my land" cartoons are.

However, the Jib Jab cartoons gained national, and even international recognition. You can't compare them to an illwill blog. --Titoxd 01:40, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a week and see if it takes off.

BTW have you watched it?

Still non-notable. BTW, it isn't that funny to begin with. --Titoxd 02:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be in the article, but it is funny as hell and a good point if you think about it.--mitrebox 03:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat notable, but profane. Definitely does not belong in the article. CrazyC83 03:39, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What information is contain there? Why should the world know about it? --Vsion 05:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, humor is great in any context. It lifts the human spirit. I can think of a good example. In the first Gulf War, an Iraq man was talking to an English Reporter. A jet fighter had just missed a bridge and hit a village instead. The man said "My wife and children are in that village". The reporter said "Aren't you annoyed with me, being British?". The Iraqi said, "Don't worry. This is a Saudi plane. The British planes never miss the target.". The Iraqi is one good guy! Respect! Leistung 09:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's word of internet opportunists trying to scam folks donating to Katrina relief efforts. [8]. It should be mentioned, and that people who want to help should go to fema.gov for a list of reputable charities.--YoungFreud 03:46, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is that death toll reliable 1013 people???

Couldn't find source on this, so took it out until source is known. --Vsion 05:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't rely on the report from Fox News. News media has consistently reported firearms that even look like AK-47s as AK-47s. In reality, a real AK-47 is an automatic weapon, which is quite rare to find in America and heavily regulated. Automatic weapons are rarely used in crimes because of their scarcity. These were most likely semi-automatic Romanian WASR-10s or some other semi-auto imports. Huge difference. Wait for this to be confirmed definitively, but until then, I wouldn't post it as fact.

A WASR-10 is pretty much a glorified hunting rifle that looks like an AK and can accept a larger magazine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.68.216 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most semi-automatic AK-47 derivants sold in the USA as "assault rifles" are only a 5 minute nailfile work away from becoming a true machine gun, literally. Me think 90% of the buyers has this illegal thing done (for 10$ in some shady parts of LA).

anyone seen this? http://www.livejournal.com/users/interdictor/ Anaraug 08:16, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Could be a total fake. What would you need to blog from NO? Power (Possibly on, maybe a car battery, but not long) Dry Laptop (rare), Internet Access (cellphone service not so good right now, more power too)--mitrebox 14:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, could be fake, especially with the live webcam of what is clearly new orleans. i was assuming satelite internet, but who knows.Anaraug 15:43, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not fake. It's the DirectNIC datacenter, which has diesel generators, racks of dry servers on the 27th story of a building (which is in the central business district, which isn't flooded anyway), and enough redundant backbone feeds that some of them are still up. Also, a live webcam. An official press release confirms. --Delirium 16:35, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

The first thing to remember is that most people (even media experts) don't know crap about guns (or much of everything else). They usually assume any rifle with wood is an ak-47. Most often these are SKS rifles that are semi-automatic. Although fully automatic mods are failry common to actually work they usually require a semi-professional and unscrupolous gunsmith and a few hundered dollars.--mitrebox 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that most people assume that anything w/ a curved magazine that even remotely looks like a rifle would be mistaken for an AK-47 by those who don't know what they're looking at. But in terms of FOX News, everyone should be carefull w/ anything they say. FOX News journalists are notorious for using "loaded" words and phrasing to make situations seem less/more serious than they are. In this case, the use of the term AK-47 could be construed as a loaded phrase because it makes the situation seem more like a war zone than other models of guns.

More than eight times this user vandalized this page. Somone should ban: User:218.57.243.52. --ThomasK 10:04, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure that Baylink or Dream Guy could soon arrange this. They are the self styled Wiki Police. Anyway, ThomasK, well done for restoring the article. Leistung 11:10, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You won't be happy until it has some mention of Europe and uses metric units. --CFIF 11:25, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

haha. Leistung 16:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:218.57.243.52, User:82.201.171.87 have vandalized this page more than a dozen in total. Please ban them. --ThomasK 13:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Report persistent vandalism at Wikipedia:vandalism in progress for swift attention. Rd232 14:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the Other Effects section should be in Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. Some of the rest should be in Hurricane Katrina effects by region. And what's left could be merged with the previous section, which needs a better summary of those daughter articles. Rd232 13:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, Death toll (summary) is logically part of Effects too. Rd232 13:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some newbies are creating sections, subsections, and even articles willy-nilly. Feel free to be bold in repairing poor factoring decisions. --Dhartung | Talk 17:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also feel free to discuss these issues on the Talk pages (rather than announce they exist), so that newbies like me can understand why these are poor factoring decisions. --Twigboy 19:14, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the story here ([9]) is likely to become huge in the next couple of weeks. One quote from the article: "At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars." I think, without being political, this angle should be covered on Wikipedia. --Rmalloy 13:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overestimate the Iraq fiscal effect on those decisions - the several rounds of vast tax cuts had at least as much impact on the fiscal environment in which those kind of spending decisions were made. Rd232 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And see also BBC: Papers hail heroes but blast Bush and my response to a point about Bush's reaction on Archive 05, including a link to an article from Popular Mechanics about this very problem, dated 2001. Since then the tanned, nonchalant Bush has made a speech, in which he read some figures from a piece of paper and grinned a lot. -Ashley Pomeroy 14:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting concerned about POV issues. The tone is really starting to shift to 'No-one could have predicted that a hurricane...' In fact the predictions were legion and they were ignored by governments. The only link to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans is the one I just added to See Also. Alan 14:11, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of troll feeding I'm going to take a shot at this one. This story will only be popular in "Liberal" Newspapers and media outlets. While it will probally spread to the House, no senator will even think about risking a backlash politizing this. Democrats will continue preaching to themselves and convince themselves the who nation is behind them on this. (Kind of the way they thought the country was with them right before the election.)--mitrebox 14:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. What do your theories on politics have to do with the Wikipedia article? --Rmalloy 14:24, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you're obviously trying to push this issue. Look, I don't like Bush either, but this isn't the place for your political advocacy. --Delirium 15:22, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Mitrebox. I wish you wouldn't go on about trolls. It is highly divisive, and takes people' energy off the main points. Or are you trying to say that all "liberals" are "trolls"?? I think that wiki is wrong about the POV issue, as all historical events are POV. If 10 people see the same thing, there will probably be 10 different POVs. As far as political discussions are concerned, these are all important, as it demonstrates why decisions were made at the time. I hope you won't consider my statements "trollish". Leistung 15:32, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A wiki is a type of user-editable website. The Wikipedia is one example of such websites. These are not synonyms. Also, Neutral point of view is an official policy of Wikipedia dating back from its earliest days. If you're wishing to challenge that policy, you should at least know it, and know its history, before going on at length; we've heard all the objections before. --Dhartung | Talk 17:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if the maximum sustained winds for Hurricane Katrina were really 184 mph, because as I was watching the storm's entire track vigilantly and on the Weather Channel I remember them saying that the wind speeds had increased to 184 mph. Shortly after that was issued they decreased the maximum sustained wind speeds to 175 mph. Did anyone else see this, because it was listed here before as the maximum wind speeds? Was that a Weather Channel or NHC error or what?

None of the advisories [10] were >175mph, but since the advisories (at that time) were on 3 hour intervals, a 184mph speed may have been recorded between advisories. I haven't been able to source a 184mph reading yet ... still checking. --Twigboy 19:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]