Talk:Hurricane Katrina

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Hurricane Katrina article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

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
ARCHIVES: Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. See archives: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08

Other Levee Disasters

"There has been no other levee breach causing such a level of death or evacuation"

This is mentioned in the article, so what is meant by that? In the USA? Well that might be right, but if youre talking about the whole world its VERY wrong.

There have been levee breaches in many parts of the worlds, on sea shores or rivers for centuries with tens of thousands to millions of dead! There have been several (1164, 1362, 1570, 1634, 1717 AD) storm tides in northern Europe with levee breaches causing tens of thousands (yes, above 10000 dead) dead in the past centuries. The breaches of levees on the yellow river in China even left hundreds of thousands dead. There may be more examples.

So I fixed that sentence.

Conference

Earlier it was discussed whether this article should be about the storm.

We should discuss this again, because in the days to come the political issues regarding the aftermath of the storm are going to be heated.

Is there a point where the "Hurricane Katrina" article needs to be left at the arrival of the storm, it's pyhsical description, it's immediate affect/impact. At just about the point we are now - - with ongoing updates/corrections of data. And then another article on the politics of Hurricane Katrina which are going to build and build in content and will devour the content already existing here in this article.

Today, also, we already see the difficulty of lurkers rummaging around the content and layout. I suggest the general record on this article is settling in and the rummaging of existing content mixed with new content is going to drive editing and preservation to the brink.

Political effects of Hurricane Katrina is set up for the politics.

Please join in this conversation.Kyle Andrew Brown 00:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other floods

In March, 1982 in Fort Wayne, Indiana there was an abrupt warm front with much rain that moved over NE Indiana causing snow melt and flooding. Located at the confluence of the St. Mary's, St. Joseph and Maumee Rivers the waters crested and prompted sandbagging of the banks. Then-president Ronald Reagan was flown to the stricken area, took of his coat and helped with a few sandbags himself. Since then, a modern flood wall was built there. Musicwriter 00:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the 1913 Great Dayton Flood which resulted in an amazing system of reservoirs to prevent future flooding; however, neither is worthy of discussion here. (Apologies for the sarcasm) Peyna 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damage in Biloxi

Has there been any damage to Nativity BVM Cathedral on Howard Ave.? Musicwriter 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

shouldn't we place this somewhere more prominent and noticable?

http://survivedkatrina.proboards54.com/index.cgi{unsigned}

Neutrality check requested for Political effects of Hurricane Katrina

CrazyC83 has added an {{NPOV}} tag to Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, apparently based on his belief that keeping the article POV-free "is virtually impossible. What some view as NPOV is POV for others, on both sides of the fence." I'd like for a neutral third party to have a look at the page and offer an opinion as to whether the tag is justified. -- BDAbramson ^talk 02:05, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, it is inappropriate to place an NPOV tag without bringing specific correctable problems with the article to the Talk page. CrazyC83 ought to know that. If he can't defend the placement of the tag, it should be removed. --Dhartung | Talk 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Intro

I have reverted gone back to the my edited version of the intro because we MUST say when this happened. Furthermore, I deliberately specified it is the Louisiana's largest city because many people would not know that. We don't all live in the US. Moriori 02:08, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Controversies

Can someone tell me why the controversy in which an anti-abortion group blamed Katrina on the existence of abortion clinics in New Orleans not belong in the article? --Asbl 02:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason that Osama Bin Laden saying that Katrina was punishment from Allah is not allowed either. It's religious extremism, and we're trying to keep a neutral point of view. In any case, that kind of thing would belong at the Political effects of Hurricane Katrina, not here. --Titoxd 02:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd, that sounds like something of a misunderstanding of NPOV... If we can quote someone notable saying that the storm was punishment for whatever, then repeating that fact (that they said it) would not be a violation of NPOV and might well be of interest in the article. 24.165.233.150 06:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree. I was trying to come up with a less extreme example, but I couldn't come up with one. If Bin Laden ended up proclaiming that, then a whole lot of eyebrows would be raised and it would deserve a mention in the article. But my point is: the anti-abortion group isn't notable, so why should they be in the article? --Titoxd 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

With that, you have my agreement. 24.165.233.150 17:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looting

It may be a good idea to update the looting section to differentiate the initial opportunistic looting (Stereos, shoes etc) from the later looting. The looting which is happening right now is arising from desperation due to a shortage of water and food, and I think that some distinction should be made between the two.

There is too much coverage of foreigners (tourists) doing all the looting. Some tourists from other countries were unable to leave New Orleans, and they had to take some food in order to survive. There are others kidnapping people, holding them up, commiting murders, and even shooting at the police. I would describe these as bandits, criminal gangsters or pirates rather than looters. Leistung 12:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina.com?

http://digg.com/technology/How_The_Woman_Who_Owned_Katrina.com_Started_Helping_Victims (http://techdirt.com/articles/20050902/0141234_F.shtml)

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2005-09-02-katrina.com_x.htm?csp=34

It seems that this Katrina.com bit is a very relevant bit of info. Shall we add to story? Lockeownzj00 05:18, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm. My first reaction is this is not a blog. I would expect a good blog to link to all sorts of side bar storys. I sorta think katrina.com is either human interest maybe promotion, but I'm not sure. I sorta think the encyclopedia article here records the natural affects of the storm and the starting point of where the politics evolve. Then in Political effects of Hurricane Katrina goes the truly political stuff. Where to put the human interest stuff like this appears to be, well first its newspaper site stuff really. At what point is it encyclopedic? That's the question you have to engage.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Press

Paragraph 2, Link No. 1 to Free Press broken.Kyle Andrew Brown 06:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...you can fix it...--The Kooky One 20:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stevertigo

User is completely removing entire sections of content and advisories. Changing layouts when asked not to do so without consensus. Refueses to discuss in TALK. He was advised to go to TALK and reach consensus.Kyle Andrew Brown 07:11, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see too much problem with what he's doing, and considering the massive flux the article is in, it's probably a good thing, to minimize edits to one page. When this all calms down, we may be prudent to re-merge the list article into this one, because then, for example, the live feed section will be unnecessary, and the death toll table will have stabilized. --Golbez 08:43, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, but in that case, an HTML comment should be added so that editors know that it is a temporary thing, because it looks pretty ugly now with the "#" anchor links. Lexor|Talk 10:34, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I see a big problem making massive changes without discussion and especially since he was told prior to this that the appropriate thing is to go to TALK. When he moved the pics he was being vindictive because he knew that he was politely said that many folks had worked on them, placing them and he just reverts. This mentality keeps up and the page will be chaos because no good editors will stick around.Kyle Andrew Brown 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't even been to this Talk page before, since I haven't been editing this article. But I saw the formatting changes to the charts this morning, and my first reaction was, "Why did they decide to do that?" There are now three places where the death toll has to be updated (The top of this article in the Katrina box, the small chart in the Death Toll section of this article, and in the lists article.), and it seems kind of silly. Since I now gather that the change was made by one person, without consensus, I think it should be put back. --DavidK93 15:53, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MAD

Apparently they're going to be deploying Magnetic Acoustic Devices(MADs) for crowd control. Do we already have an article for this device? See http://wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,68732,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_1 for details

See Long range acoustic device. --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Death toll

The box on the right of the page says 1029 direct fatalities, but the box in the "Death toll (summary)" section gives "631+" direct fatalities. That's a fairly large inconsistency; are two different sources being used? Loganberry (Talk) 15:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's unverified reports of a 1000+ death toll in Biloxi. Look further up this talk page and you'll see it. --YoungFreud 16:16, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't account for the difference of 398 between the two figures I mentioned. Surely they should both be being taken from the same sources, and therefore agree with each other? Loganberry (Talk) 17:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the two sections must agree. Neither section makes its source(s) explicit--and, given the wild estimates given in the immediate aftermath of Sept. 11, four years ago, I don't give much credence to the statements of politicians. They mean well--everyone's asking them for a number, and perhaps they need to quote something high, in order to emphasize the size of the need--but they're not on the ground. They're not trained in assessing casualty counts.

I recommend, with due respect, that the numbers at the top of the page use those in Death Toll as their basis, and that the numbers in Death Toll have direct references attached to them, ala "Florida ... Broward ... 3(source) or some such. Otherwise, how does the intrepid surfer confirm that there were two indirect fatalities in Jefferson County, OH?--RattBoy 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image Error

The Death Summary section has the front page photo from the 9/2/05 New York Times of woman dead in water. It is a Agence France-Presse image. Wiki has already notified on the Source page it is marked for deletion because it is not marked for free use. It's not gong to remain for long.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Homoneutralis

Please look carefully at Homoneutralis AKA "POV Destroyer" edits. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR Revert Wars quickly follow him. He travels here via Cindy Sheehan. I don't know if this insert is slipping this article deeper into getting into political debates here, and again I refer you above to the conversation about separating the natural disaster from the political disaster to follow. All I can say is that wherever Homoneutralis travels the passions and personal attacks quickly follow.Kyle Andrew Brown 01:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of this, I've created Breaking News Watch, a WikiProject which will serve as a noticeboard for articles that require immediate attention due to their importance (notice that this has a very narrow scope and does not interfere with Vandalism in Progress). You're all welcome to go there and modify things as you see fit, and if this works, I'll move it from my User space and into the main Wikipedia namespace. --Titoxd 02:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How ridiculous. Did you even read the edits I made? Most of the editors of Wikipedia are so Left that if a moderate comes along to even try to make it neutral they are accused of adding right-wing POV. F*** ***. You know you are wrong, but you don't have the intellectual honesty to admit it. Homoneutralis 12:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, whereever this poster goes the vulgerisms, the vandalism and the personal attacks follow.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:00, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:4.227.175.237 , User: Homoneutralis, User:4.228.216.125, User:4.228.216.149 and others

Three revert rule violation on Cindy Sheehan (history · watch). Kyle Andrew Brown (talk • contribs):

To quote: You damn fool, I'm not the anon poster he was talking about. LOL!! I think I will notify the sysops of you obtuse stupidity. Homoneutralis 01:48, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: Seriously, how old are you? Homoneutralis 02:39, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: You just desperate to find something un-neutral about me aren't you? It's so unbecoming. Homoneutralis 02:22, 22 August 2005

To quote: You know exactly how you want this story portrayed, and you will call anything that runs counter to your idealogy, "POV". Please be forewarned, that I was not born yesterday, POV destroyer 17:53, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: Uh-oh, now you've done it. Eleemosynary will soon be all over you calling you a biased, POV-inserting charlatan who should be blocked immediately...oh, wait, no sorry, that's only if you add anything that doesn't come from George Soros or Michael Moore. Homoneutralis 18:09, 22 August 2005 (UTC

To quote: You'll find intellectual honesty is not a ubiquitous asset around these parts. Good luck. Homoneutralis 19:36, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: Let me stop you before you make a complete fool of yourself. The fact that you don't see the POV in using terms like "Progressives" and "Patriots" should prove to the reader that you have no business trying to be a neutral point of view editor. I shudder to think how many ignorant souls like you there are on Wikipedia. Homoneutralis 02:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: My experience with this one shows me that most of the more enthusiastic editors, that spend hours with an article are those that could be characterized as Liberal, Progressive, Leftist, whatever your favorite phrase is. Moderates and conservatives seem to have not found Wikipedia or avoid it. Homoneutralis 00:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Also from Homoneutralis as AKA POV Destroyer:

To quote: I have not seen a good argument for exluding the "Fuhrer" comment. I will restore it. POV destroyer 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: you have selective reading skills. I think the person being personally attacked is me. POV destroyer 02:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: The facts are making you upset Gorgon? Seriously, are you still in High School? POV destroyer 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

To quote: Everytime you come on here accusing me of inserting POV you go running away with your tail between your legs when confronted by the facts. So keep it up, I'll let truth be my shield. POV destroyer 02:36, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL! Kyle Andrew Brown, I knew you were a sockpuppet of Eleemosynary. I just needed a post like this to confirm it. Good job dingleberry. Homoneutralis 20:04, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This has jack and @#$^ to do with Hurricane Katrina. If you wish to talk about Homoneutralis and his contributions to Wikipedia, go to User talk:Homoneutralis. David Iwancio 24.110.195.131 20:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Guppy313, it is has very much to do with this article because of the history that this poster has of totally disrupting the boards he visits with endless reverts, profanity and personal attacks - - in clear violation of Wiki standards. Once the poster traveled here it was IN THE BEST INTEREST of the editors here to be on notice of what methods the poster uses to totally disrupt a page. And on other boards we have already determined that it is useless to "talk" to the poster.

So far, the editors here have done a terrific job of keeping things low key. It's great our "battles" are more about where to put content, rather than what the content is.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Causes and the Global Warming Discussion

I notice that every link to environmental causes of heavy hurricanes are deleted from this article. At the same time, throughout the world, people are discussing and referring to literature making exactly this link. Just google for "Katarina 'global warming'" and you get 263.000 pages. I assume that an organized group is intentionally erasing links from this article in order to leave the public uninformed. 84.171.235.12 14:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The cause of hurricanes belongs in the article about hurricanes not in the article about Katrina. Please read the prior discussion before making accusations. 24.165.233.150 17:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The google result shows that people are making the connection. A simple link to literature and articles (times, CNN, science, nature) should not be removed. 84.171.255.215 17:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Schedules events

Please note the availability of {{future}} in both articles and sections for the presence of scheduled events; an example is 2006 in music. WAS 4.250 15:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

International Reaction, revisited

A list of 25 nations offering assistance is in "International reaction" above. Simesa 17:06, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Here's a question: If a country is linked, should a 'the' article be inside the referred country link or not? Mardus 18:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid Wiki Responder

Thanks verrrry much BDAbramson for being a Rapid Wiki Responder!Kyle Andrew Brown 18:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economics and Employment

This sentence from the 09/03/05 Washington Post: "Before the storm, the Mobile, Ala., Biloxi, Miss., and New Orleans metropolitan areas supported about 1 million non-farm jobs, with about 600,000 of them in New Orleans."

I noted it in the Economic effects article, is the information placeable in the main article here?

Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/02/AR2005090202468.html Kyle Andrew Brown 18:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons people did not evacuate

I see the following uncited statement in the article: "Thousands of poor city residents were unable to leave the area because they lacked transportation or the means to pay for it."

Is this just some editor's guess or was it cited by some expert? Otherwise I think we need to remove it as I think the jury is still out on why so many people ignored the mandatory evacuation order. Homoneutralis 20:09, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 2000 census shows that most had no private transportation methods. It's right there in the article.--The Kooky One 20:38, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were also tourists who got stuck inside NO. By the time the evacuation order came around, the airports were closed and rental car services were sold out.--YoungFreud 01:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From the Washington Post editorial, Left Behind:

"Tragically, authorities in New Orleans were aware of this problem. Certainly the numbers were known. Shirley Laska, an environmental and disaster sociologist at the University of New Orleans, had only recently calculated that some 57,000 New Orleans Parish households, or approximately 125,000 people, did not have access to cars or other private transportation."

That number is roughly 1/4 of the population of New Orleans, and as YoungFreud pointed out, that also doesn't count the tourists in a major tourist destination. 4.232.105.59 09:06, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A contributing reason is pets. Anecdotally, an elderly woman featured calling in on FOX cited her elderly dog as a reason for staying put, and a story about two elderly nuns mentioned they had concerns about caring for pets. Lack of a personal automobile combined with policies against pets on busses and planes may have caused many to stay, even in cases where a bus ticket was affordable. (24.218.106.196 02:03, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Why are Liberal advocacy sites sources for this event?

Does anyone else think it is strange that Democracy Now and Commondreams are cited as sources for "facts" about this event. I almost guarantee that if anyone put a statement in this article sourced from Newsmax or World News Daily, that it would by yanked for POV. Homoneutralis 20:13, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there is an accuracy problem with the content, bring it here.. If there is something wrong with a particular source, find an alternative source. --24.165.233.150 20:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We've got some articles with sources from White supremacist sites cited as articles. I kind of have doubts over your guarantee.--220.238.233.226 09:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exporting externals

This morning someone forked the externals off into another article without discussion. I'm sure this was well intentioned, but it comes off looking like a sneaky way to turn the article into a link directory. Please see WP:NOT. If the externals section grows too big, the correct solution is to trim it down, not put it into another page. It is important that a close eye is kept on the externals section because there have already been several instances of probable fraud donation sites being listed. Thanks. --24.165.233.150 20:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okie

I'm still at a loss of a word to describe these people.

What is the word that says you are a refugee within your own country just because nobody planned for your escape from a storm tracked by 21st century satellites and living in a community, state and nation with elected officials whose responsibility it is to care for you who just gave you a pass. Oppps, sorrry, this must be that POV sockpuppet within me at the keyboard...Kyle Andrew Brown 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Upwardly mobile? Leistung 10:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The word is internally displaced person, by longstanding international agreement. Note that from a UN standpoint, a refugee is someone who crosses into another country and/or has justified fear of persecution. --Dhartung | Talk 09:07, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Watch this space. In about three days certain pundits are going to start claiming these people are lingering too long in the AstroDome until they get free homes, free jobs, limos..."

The image of people standing on a public street corner chanting to their government: "Help US, Help US, Help Us!" after four days without food and shelter....Kyle Andrew Brown 15:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not for Wiki to decide. If some term enters common usage in the future, then it can have its own article, etc, but "crystal ball" is specifically listed in What Wikipedia is not. The fact that this section has been labelled "the future" is a red flag that it is not appropriate. David Iwancio 24.110.195.131 20:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SURGE

Conspiracy theories

Well, it was probably inevitable... I've created an article on Hurricane Katrina conspiracy theories, in order to house... ah... theories that have been put in some other articles without really belonging there (or anywhere else). -- BDAbramson ^talk 01:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you having a standard to keep out the ridiculous, or is the article bound to evolve into the ridiculous and is that a permissible WIKI article. Oh and do we get photos of the aliens...remember they must be free domain and of excellent resolution. No grainy photos will be accepted....Kyle Andrew Brown 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SomethingAwful down

I had to see this too believe it, but Something Awful is down. They only have a frontpage up right now, but the main servers were located in New Orleans, I believe in the DirectNIC building. I'm not sure if it should be mentioned under the Internet section (it is on the main article page), as SA is popular and rather infamous, but seems a bit trivial in light of what's going on.--YoungFreud 01:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you might be interested in this link about PayPal blocking them from donations...

[http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25915}Kyle Andrew Brown 15:32, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator specifically mentioned having to turn off the server for that site. So the server is probably physically OK and the site is likely to be easily restarted when power is restored. The location is running off a manually-refueled generator and they had to turn off a number of things. (SEWilco 00:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Comparison to 1928 hurricane

I have not seen this mentioned anywhere (in the media or on wikipedia) but I see very close parallels between Katrina and the 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane.

Both were strong category 4 storms at US landfall (weakened from category 5).
Both caused total devastation along the coast (well, what category 4 hurricane doesn't...).
Both caused (wide, shallow) lakes to overflow their levees and flood inhabited lower-elevation land.
Both floods persisted for weeks (presumably), leading to a humanitarian disaster.
In both floods, the victims were mostly poor and mostly minorities.
Both killed thousands (presumably).

While one can make comparisons between any set of destructive hurricanes I think the 1928 hurricane is the most closely comparable to Katrina - more so than Camille (which caused the devastation expected of any strong storm and happened to hit in the same place) or Betsy (which did cause flooding, and in the same location, but without the other disasters).

Should any mention of this be added to the Katrina article? Or is this just my own personal extrapolation?

Jdorje 02:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane did most of its killing in rural areas, incredibly! CrazyC83 16:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I just came upon the Hurrican Katrina page, and it had been seriously vandalized. Someone under the IP address 202.7.183.130 had replaced the entire article with images of the human male penis in both the flacid and errect states. I'm glad I wasn't in an public place or somewhere else where it may have caused some awkward moments. If that's going to be happening, perhaps it's time to protect the article from editing until things cool down.
JesseG 02:43, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I thought the big penis images were on MediaWiki:Bad image list? ~~ N (t/c) 02:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, they are. Was this the same as Image:Circpn.jpg and Image:Uncircpn.jpg? If so, somebody has uploaded blacklisted images for vandalism - a first? ~~ N (t/c) 02:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's Image:Flaccid and erect human penis.jpg. Should be on bad image list - mentioning at WP:AN/I. ~~ N (t/c) 03:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

the ip 216.194.7.238 has also been replacing the infrared image of the hurricaine with tubgirl. classy, eh. Leigh Honeywell 15:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just reloaded the article and it was directed to a Pamela Anderson page. Mardus 17:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, redirected. -- Mardus 17:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my messages here from the wrong section. Mardus 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Disaster wiki?

This isn't strictly about the encyclopedia, but: I had an idea that it could be good to have a disaster wiki. Possibly it could be through either Wikimedia or Wikicities.

One of the thing it could do is help volunteers, victims, etc., communicate. For instance, it could include an alphabetical listing of people affected and their status, a list of shelters and people willing to take in refugees. Maurreen (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Already exists for this particular disaster: [1]. This could be a worthy Wikimedia project, though... if we have sep11wiki, we might as well have this. ~~ N (t/c) 02:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved my messages under the "Vandalism" section.^^ Mardus 17:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another one is katrinahelp.info. Note that both these sites explicitly include things that would be inappropriate for Wikipedia. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Storm surge uncertainty

There seems to be some disagreement over what Katrina's storm surge really was. I have seen the 30 feet statistic included in the article quoted at least by Yahoo News, but the St. Petersburg Times ([2]) says it was 29 feet, and the Monday 6 AM NHC forecast called for a maximum surge of 28 feet ([3]]). The 28 feet forecast seems to have been repeated as fact by several sources, including [4] and [5]. On the other hand, at least one source ([6]) gives the surge as "over 30 feet in spots", but does not provide further details. All these values are clearly peak values, and many news sources give Katrina's storm surge as 22 feet, the average (?) level given in the NHC forecast cited above. Given all this, I would either like to see an authoritative citation of the 30 feet statistic or some fuzz factor included in the article. Ataru 03:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between the surge and the maximum sea height. The surge is the height ON TOP of the tide, and since Katrina hit near high tide, 25 ft above sea level would have seen water from a 22 ft surge. Plus, you often have wave action on top of that height. 28 or 29 ft appears to the correct value, but water levels are seen higher than that. One home in Waveland reported water at nearly 40 feet, but that is possible with tide+surge+wave and would be consistent with the reports of seeing water damage over 30 feet in Biloxi. I've seen one surge map (NOAA or Navy) that I believe showed 29 feet, but I can't find it now. I'll try and find it and post it. 70.181.93.233 09:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are also places like the shore of Lake Pontchartrain, which is itself above sea level, and which concentrated the storm surge brought directly inside by counter-clockwise winds. I'm not sure we have an authoritative height for that. --Dhartung | Talk 09:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economist cover

This is such a very basic issue that a very experienced admin needs to step in here and clear this up. This conversation - while completely valid - is chewing up the morale of all very dedicated folks and chewing up editing time - - I joined others yesterday countless times reverting it because no one explained why they had removed it. This is a very specific WIKI approved answer and none of us are able to provide it.

Because this issue is a TALK, and because it is about a question of violation of Wiki policy, the cover CANNOT at this time be in the article. It is inappropriate WIKI procedure to revert it back in the article. It is entirely appropriate to revert it out. (And I for one hope the cover passes the WIKI test!)

Wiki admin: Can a cover depicting the discussion in an article be placed in that article. YES or NO.

Someone removed "The Economist" photograph of New Orleans, under the belief that it was not allowed under copyrght law. Here is a direct quote from the fair use tag: [to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.]. We are illustrating the publication of this issue of the magazine on Hurricane Katrina. It qualifies. 71.32.199.15 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is moving alot of stuff and we sorta know who.

Wiki protocol requires that removal of content, especially longstanding, needs to be brought up in TALK. Any type of revert or major edit should by practice be stated in the comment on the history page.Kyle Andrew Brown 05:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took it out, simply because the image is violating the fair use clause we're claiming, and there is currently a crackdown on fair use images. --Titoxd 05:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For us non-lawyers, how is it in violation of fair use? ~~ N (t/c) 05:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We can only use the image on The Economist's article to illustrate it, not anywhere else. It's a copyrighted work. --Titoxd 05:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tito, I don't think you understand what fair use means for a magazine cover. Please re-read it, it does not say only restricted to illustrating the publication of the magazine it says the publication of this issue, which means it is allowed for this article. The image of the publication of the Hurricane Katrina issue is allowed on the Hurricane Katrina page. 71.32.199.15 17:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

<<It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question,>> And we are illustarting the Hurricane Katrina issue. 71.32.199.15 17:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be dense, it means "issue" as in "issue number 12" not in terms of what it's covering. It clearly is not fair use to abuse the magizine covert just to add another illustraiton to the article. 24.165.233.150 17:29, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are being dense. Read it. I am a paralegal, you obviously have no exp. in these matters. Even the Sept. 11th article has magazine covers. 71.32.199.15 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it says "this issue in question"? Under your intepretation it should read only one cover for a magazine. To illustrate the publication of it. It does not. It says THIS ISSUE IN QUESTION. 71.32.199.15 17:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page:

It is fair use to use an illegial copy to discuss the work in question, for example I can use the cover of a book to illustrate an article on the book. But it is not okay to use the cover elseware, for example I can not use the cover to talk about books. ... Or for example I could use an album cover depicting slaves to discuss the album or the band, but I couldn't use it on an article on slavery without a discussion of the album. Now, you could add a discussion of the album to slavery of sufficent depth to make it fair use to include the image, but that text would almost certantly be removed due to being off topic. 24.165.233.150 17:33, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Now you could actually use that album cover if the music was indeed about slavery. 71.32.199.15 17:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear:

The tag reads:

"to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question"

Under your interpretation it should read:

"to illustrate the publication of the magazine in question"

It does not because your interpretation is wrong. 71.32.199.15 17:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, the text was clarified because our bar is even higher than discussing the mag... we prefer people to use public domain pictures to discuss mags where possible, and only use fair use images when they must discuss a specific issue of the mag. Both Titoxd and I are experienced Wikipedians. I have spent a lot of time working intellectual property issues on Wikipedia. This issue has been hashed out many times, and the position I am advancing here is the consensus position. --24.165.233.150 17:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny multiple articles have magazine covers - and they are not the magazine's article. Even the wording of the tag is clear. Until this is resolved, I suppose we should remove them all. 71.32.199.15 18:01, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of images that use to be on articles, but now under the new interpretation of 24.165.233.150 must be removed:

Image:honoluluadvertiser11september2001.jpg from September 11, 2001 attacks
Image:howardsternvoiceofamerica.jpg| from Howard Stern
Image:TIME feb 2003.jpgfrom Space Disaster

700,000+ articles and thats all you could find? :) We're doing pretty good then. I can't comment on the 9/11 article, there may be a more complicatied situation which permits the use.. it's also dependant on the article text (which I haven't read for 9/11)... or it's quite possible our use there was a violation as well. Keep in mind WP:Point, you aren't likely to get support with that sort of action. As far as I can tell, you're the only person who is reading the magcover notice differently than I am... --24.165.233.150 18:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am stopping at this point, but there are hundreds that under your interpretation would need to be removed. Because according to you, they must discuss the magazine, not just the event. 71.32.199.15 18:11, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't flawless, I'd be shocked if you couldn't find a few dozen. There are thousands of copyright violations on Wikipedia. Just because you can find other examples doesn't mean that you're right... it might just mean that they were wrong. I was kinda hoping you'd continue your disruptive tirade: I was already looking for something to make into a copyvio destroyer barnstar to award to you. :) --24.165.233.150 18:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you do decide that you'd like to start disrupting wikipedia to prove a point again, you can start here in your audit. ... You'll likely save someone else the effort of fixing a lot of these, so have fun. --24.165.233.150 19:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are disrupting Wikipedia. I still believe my interpretation is correct. I am merely waiting for others to add more to the discussion. You are being a bit pompous. Plus if you think you are correct, then it would be considered correction not disruption. Or do you now think that you are wrong? 71.32.199.15 19:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My view of WP:Point has always been built around intention. Someone who is intending to help directly is not in violation of WP:Point no matter what they do (thought they might be breaking other guidelines), and someone who is doing something they disagree with just to make a point is breaking WP:Point even if what they are doing is good. I think that if you removed every questionable mag cover it would be a good thing, although I'm sure you'd get a few wrong (since it really must be considered per article and its sometimes a complex issue) but in general it would be an improvment from a copyright and freedom perspective. This is why I've encouraged you to do it, and provided you with a list of images to check. However, since you don't actually agree with the action you'd still be violating wp:point which is frowned on, even if others would thank you for cleaning up some fair-use abuse. I'm not trying to be rude, what you take as pompousness is just confidence: I've dealt with this issue before and I know your position isn't correct. My position supported by many other Wikipedians. --24.165.233.150 20:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Race Issues (finding/looting)

The account of the controversey over the two photos concludes with the line 'But according to the photographers, the person described as "looting" was seen taking the items from a store, and those described as "finding" found items in the water.' The 'finding' photographer is quoted in the Snopes articles, but does anyone have a source for the 'looting' photographer making any such statement?--The Bruce 04:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Snopes article quotes Salon.com, which says:

Jack Stokes, AP's director of media relations, confirmed today that Martin says he witnessed the people in his images looting a grocery store. "He saw the person go into the shop and take the goods," Stokes said, "and that's why he wrote 'looting' in the caption." Maurreen (talk) 05:57, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I missed the Salon quote.--The Bruce 06:17, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Those explanations don't really adequately explain pictures like this: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/050830/480/ladm11608301734

Did anyone see the CNN "reporter" at the Houston reception point for buses grilling a guy for being on a bus that was not really from the Dome, they just joined the caravan, and the CNN guy - Shane -is grilling him for "proof" he really was INSIDE the dome. It was DEPLORABLE Cnn journalism. Fortunately the host lady tried to keep saying was it really important where he came from, but the clown in Houston just would not stop. I hope this Shane guy stays a stringer.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Columnist Cary Clack (Express News) concludes: "it's inexcusable and unconscionable that in the United States of America, in what may be this nation's greatest tragedy, there are elderly, children, sick and poor people who believe that their government has abandoned them to a fate unimaginable in the most prosperous and most technologically advanced country in history." Is that linkable?"Kyle Andrew Brown 19:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Externals / Support groups

The Support Groups area of the External Links & Resources area keeps getting reverted. One of the reverters is calling 3RR on me, but whatever. I contend that the Support Group section is a relevant and helpful resource for the Katrina disaster and the people affected by it. The fact that I started the site is irrelevant. It's non-commercial and a directly-related, beneficial public service. Having the section there and an 11th External does not a link farm make. What's most disappointing is that some people here are more interested in counting links than helping people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.5.29 (talk • contribs) 07:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Jacob above has a history of adding externals Wikipedia with sites he operates which other editors just remove. I say this not to imply that his edits are in bad faith, but rather that he is misunderstanding why we have externals on Wikipedia at all. The link he has been pushing in Katrina is directed to a mostly empty message forum he operates and it has been removed by multiple editors (including a couple of times by me). I am glad that Jacob has at least been respectful enough of our process to stop adding the link himself after I pointed out he was in violation of our rules... But it still doesn't make it an appropriate link in light of WP:NOT. --24.165.233.150 07:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans

The section: History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans originally had:

The breaching of two levees protecting New Orleans caused water to flow unabated into the city. Many homes are underwater in New Orleans and it is expected to take months to pump all the water out of the city. There remains a humanitarian disaster, with many people stranded due to flooding. Lawlessness persisted until September 3, 2005. [7] The federal disaster area was been placed under the control of FEMA (under Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff) and the National Guard on September 2, 2005.

A breakdown in command and communications among the local and state government first responders after Hurricane Katrina and subsequent levee failure and flooding in New Orleans on August 29, 2005 led to local civil problems and a desperate situation in await of secondary and tertiary national responders and NGO's. New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin called for federal response in a "desperate SOS" put out in the media August 31, 2005 following his city's inability to control or put down looting, rape and murder[8] jumping the gun on the state's governor Kathleen Blanco and acting beyond his power in the Posse Comitatus Act which prevents presidential direction of the National Guard without state level (Governor's) request for assistance. As mayor, Nagin was not in a position to request the federal assistance officially. The lawlessness had kept Red Cross and Salvation Army at bay unable to provide charitable relief during the crisis. Louisiana Governor Blanco eventually declared a state of emergency authorizing local law enforcement and state assigned National Guard special powers in putting down looters on September 1, 2005 four days after Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour had declared martial law in his state and well after lawlessness had set into the city of New Orleans. Blanco requested help from President Bush September 2, 2005 in a meeting along with Mayor Nagin aboard Air Force 1 at the New Orleans Louis Armstrong International Airport in Kenner, Louisiana[9]. The lawlessness was essentially ended the next day, September 3, 2005, by the federal responders under the control of President George W. Bush who had temporarily federalized state National Guard troops as requested by Blanco, Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff and Joint Task Force Katrina Commander Lt. General Russel Honore (National Guard ).

This is CLEARLY wrong on many counts. First of all, the section CLEARLY tries to blame local jurisdictions, and ends with federal system "heroically" fixing everything that was clearly a local problem. (See the first section) It just plain lacks NPOV. Even worse, it gets many things factually wrong and the whole section regarding the Posse Comitatus Act is completely ridiculous. The whole tone of the section is that it is LAYING BLAME, when this is supposed to be a history and summary of the breakdown of law and order. It's also weird for something like this to be on the front. It should be sorted by either importance or chronologically, of which "History and Summary of Breakdown of Law and Order in New Orleans" and "Declaration of State of Emergency versus Martial Law" should not be placed first. I've made significant corrections to the paragraph and moved the sections.

Further, the whole part about the Posse Comitatus Act IS NOT VALID. The page says that "The President of the United States can waive this law in an emergency;"

In addition, the later portion tries to lay blame the Blanco was late. Not true, assistance requests were made as early as the 28th of August. [10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.28.90 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to change it. You can edit almost any article on Wikipedia by just following the link at the top of the page. We encourage you to be bold in updating pages, because wikis like ours develop faster when everybody edits. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. You can always preview your edits before you publish them or test them out in the sandbox. If you need additional help, check out our getting started page or ask the friendly folks at the Teahouse. 4.232.105.59 09:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put in the bit about "Breaching of the levees protecting New Orleans caused water to flow unabated into the city.", and you removed it citing POV. If this is POV, then tell me how can I put in NPOV? If there is another POV, then how did all the water get into New Orleans? Leistung 10:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, these sections should not have been added to the main article, but belong in Effects of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans, and I have relocated them both there. The original submitter should have noticed that there is prominent subarticle indicated by the main article link. Lexor|Talk 11:14, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Good work!. Begs the question as to what should be in the main article. Is it just a summary, witrh pointers to the meaty bits? In which case, all lengthy detail in it should be removed to the "sub-articles". This detail is probably duplicated anyway. Leistung 06:30, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invites the question. (SEWilco 06:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Vandalism to be on the lookout for:

Someone has been occasionally rolling back the externals section to twoish day old version using a mix of dynamic IPs and open proxies. They are unresponsive to communication and make no other edits. (some examples of the dynamic ips include [11] [12] [13]) I am not sure why they keep doing this, but I have observed that a couple of the links being reinserted were ones which we removed because our consensus on avoiding fradulant donation sites causes us to only link to large/mainstream sites for donations. In any case, these edits should be reverted as soon as they are seen. It is not really possible to block this user because they have come from so many IPs. Thanks for your help. --24.165.233.150 09:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina vs. 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

Since I've seen several quotes from Gulf Coast residents and politicians saying this is "their tsunami", an article comparing the two natural disasters, including timelines for humanitarian aid, would be informative. 4.232.105.59 09:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you can really compare. For one thing, the U.S. has not accepted any of the aid offered (as far as I know). For another, the tsunami affected a lot more people over a much wider geographical area. Any comparisons are likely to be misleading. --220.238.233.226 10:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot compare a Tsunami with a Hurricane. The Tsunami is usually much more dangerous, with deaths running into the tens of thousands plus. See Krakatoa which happened in 1883 and the Tsunami caused major damage. Leistung 11:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TO be fair, the effects of the storm surge that accompanies a hurricane CAN be compared to the effects of a tsunami. This may partially explain the quotes that this is "their tsunami". Also, I agree that the Indian Ocean tsunami was a much bigger event, but I do think that Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean tsunami have this in common: they were both massive natural disasters that overwhelmed and devastated the communities affected. But not much more than that. Carcharoth 12:02, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Frist points out that in some ways this was worse than the tsunami. The water receded after the tsunami, so it was over, and one just needed to assist the survivors, much as in the aftermath of Katrina on the MS and AL coasts. However, with N.O. below sea level, the water did not recede, in fact, there were levee breaches that were increasing the number of people in severe danger, and also unlike the tsunami, the people were still in attics to escape the water, and dying as the sun baked those attics to 120 to 140 degrees F.--Silverback 16:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

A tsunami is much worse in that there is no warning. It's as if a hurricane storm surge arrived without any winds to warn people of the impending danger.

If it really was a tsunami, the entire Gulf Coast from the Florida Keys to the tip of the Yucatan, plus much of the Caribbean, would have been affected. CrazyC83 22:43, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's arguing that it actually was a tsunami. The question was about comparing the two disasters and their effects, including social effects. That said, I don't see that we need an article on this topic. A mention somewhere, perhaps. --Dhartung | Talk 09:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FREEZE EDITING

PEOPLE ARE PUUTING PUKING GROSS PICTURES ON THIS SITE.

Ordinarily we have to weather the storm. One more revert and it goes to admin for block procedure request. Don't spend ANY energy in dialog with the individual, it feeds their psychological need for attention.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

216.194.7.238

one more revert and off to Admin report/violation 3RR.

Keep eye on the storm this vandal is up to.Kyle Andrew Brown 15:22, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty editing (again)

I have difficulty editing, because every time I try to edit, someone has edited a section title into

===Section Title===

or

=== Section Title ===

Now, I looked up from the help pages that the correct way to make section titles in code was by actually separating equations and a section title with spaces. Whilst I thought otherwise, I was trying to 'fix' this by removing spaces, which in fact seemed to work. Now I have trouble editing a page, because once I attempt to edit this, I might accidentally remove a section [because someone seemed to code a section in a (seemingly) wrong way] and then also get into an editing conflict. - Mardus 17:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious

"Some were told they were going to Texas. When one gentleman exited the plane, he looked around and said, 'This doesn't look like Houston, but it will do,' " Frandsen said. "One of the women was 100 years old and insisted on walking off the plane herself."

Again, their destination was kept a secret. National Guard officials asked reporters not to identify their news organization or tell the people where the plane was headed. Officials explained that some on earlier flights complained loudly when told where they were going."

From Salt Lake Tribune. Does anybody else find that funny? That a person would rather stay in a flooded out city than live in Utah? 71.32.199.15 18:18, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages are not a discussion forum... Unless you're going to propose to put that text in the article, you should probably remove this section. Iff you do, feel free to remove this comment with it. --24.165.233.150 18:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Mr. Rules. :) What do you think? Should we include something? 71.32.199.15 18:25, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like it's an emergency management method. I don't know whether it was created now or if it is a standard method for reducing evacuation problems. You might remember that a few days ago a there was a fatal bus crash when the driver was attacked by a passenger who was upset about something. (SEWilco 00:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Church and Celebrity Listings?

Could we create a list of churches and celebrities who are helping?--HistoricalPisces 18:13, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of companies donating on another page already, have you seen that? One of the challenges is what qualifies helping? Should we list every blogger who writes about the storm or only people who already have wikipedia articles for other reasons? :) --24.165.233.150 19:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorta thinking the main article page is an ongoing record more than a place for seeking assistance. It's probably appropriate in links to direct folks to Wiki style organizations, but the article is more of a record, in keeping with its encylcopedic purpose.

Also, the editors here are really not in a position to evaluate organizations and activities providing aid. To go beyond content that explains there are organizations and what that are doing in an overall sense is different that specifying what individual organizations are doing which is the purpose of a blog or newspaper or radio media.

Also, the article should avoid appearing to endorse an organization because then it will be asked why it is not endorsing another - - and then we get a big political battle going.

So far, the editors here have done a terrific job of keeping things low key. It's great our "battles" are more about where to put content, rather than what the content is.Kyle Andrew Brown 22:51, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combining all survivor/missing person info into one PeopleFinder

I am a volunteer on a http://192.122.183.218/wiki/index.php/PeopleFinderVolunteer wiki an attempt to combine all missing person info message boards, using volunteer time to enter each missing/found person into the neworleansnetwork.org database. With everyone's help, the New Orleans Network's PeopleFinder will be a comprehensive list of missing persons, so that the search and connection efforts will be easier.

One of the message boards that is helping us by sending us data in the proper format is Craiglist, which is linked to in the external links. Each person that goes and posts on Craiglist then also will probably post on 15 other missing person links, and we will be working by hand to re-enter the info into the PeopleFinder. It would be of great service to survivors and their loved ones, and also to people looking to volunteer time (NOT money), if our PeopleFinder and the accompanying volunter project were linked along with Craigslist.

Please let me know if this is possible!!! (I tried linking, but I see now that it was in violation of the rules.) We're trying to get massive amounts of work done and, quite frankly, there are dozens and dozens of missing person lists currently on the net, it seems ridiculous to only list 4.

Eeblet 21:08, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think linking to New Orleans Network and to the KatrinaHelp info wiki PeopleFinder section seems a good idea... as an aggregator it's arguably a better choice than any single missing persons DB for inclusion. NOTE, though, that as of right now, the NON DB machine is down due to high traffic, as I understand it, and people can't help transcribe so it may make more sense to postpone putting a link in. See [14] ++Lar 22:14, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking Other Web Changes

This may be talk-filter; if so, my apologies. I'd like to suggest that people archive any copies they have of government and aide agency websites, and to be on the lookout for changes to those websites. Already, we have seen IEM remove some of their press releases, in which they boast about themselves, out of fear that in the aftermath of all this, they'll be held responsible; much the same applies to what FEMA's been up to on their website.

This wikipedia may be the only authoratative, true source of factual information once the coverup begins. And you *know* it's going to be one helluva coverup. Don't let the bastards get away with it!

That's a job that's more for places like cryptome.org. Wikipedia also is not in the role of being the exposer of cover-ups, due to the Neutral point of view policy. Also, there are many, many sources of factual information besides Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not always 100% reliable either. Don't oversell what we do here. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster relief response

Anyone explain what MRE-s are? Meal, Ready-to-Eat?

Yes. —Cryptic (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intensity At Louisiana Landfall

I have corrected the landfall intensity at Grand Isle, LA to 140 mph, based on this statement from the NHC:

000 WTNT62 KNHC 291116 TCUAT2 HURRICANE KATRINA TROPICAL CYCLONE UPDATE NWS TPC/NATIONAL HURRICANE CENTER MIAMI FL 610 AM CDT MON AUG 29 2005

...KATRINA MAKES LANDFALL IN SOUTHEASTERN LOUISIANA...

AT 610 AM CDT...1110Z...HURRICANE KATRINA HAS MADE LANDFALL IN SOUTHERN PLAQUEMINES PARISH LOUISIANA...JUST SOUTH OF BURAS...AS A CATEGORY FOUR HURRICANE. MAXIMUM WINDS ARE ESTIMATED AT 140 MPH TO THE EAST OF THE CENTER.

FORECASTER PASCH

Death toll table readability

Should the table lines be made more visible? Florida is centered in its cell stretching across only 3 entries, while Louisiana has many more entries such that many counties (like Jefferson) look closer to Florida than Louisiana, and thus I thought those tolls were part of the Florida impact. Perhaps align the state names at the top of their cells somehow? AySz88^-^ 05:06, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Can we ensure that the table is accurate. It pays to be a the conservate side, and not put in guestimates put forward by a "spokeman" etc. If say 50 have been verified dead, and "a source" says based on what I am seeing there could be "1000s" dead, then the figure 50 should entered, not 1000. The figure can then be revised later, when more details come in. Leistung 06:38, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the numbers actually look pretty good, except for Jefferson Parish which has a round "200", which is odd. When an official says "obvious that death tolls are in the thousands" I think it's safe to say "1000+" though. I'm pretty sure everyone's been trying not to put up an overestimated number. AySz88^-^ 07:14, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

HOW YOU CAN HELP

American RED CROSS

Should this be added?

www.scipionus.com

Its an colaborative map of the affected area, with information on flood level, power and water statuas and general damage assessments made by the site visitors (much like a wiki). Dont you guys think it would be a nice addition? 146.164.26.85 13:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]