Talk:Hurricane Katrina

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tariqabjotu (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 30 August 2005 (→Too Many Images). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Reminder: Please Don't Feed The Trolls

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived.

see archives: 01, 02, 03,


Article Bloat

At this point there is so much information, repeated constantly as well as irreleveant information (including a long description of Hurricaine Betsy) that the article is starting to lose its usefulness. I wewnt through and removed all the duplicate info, but it was restored. Please do not leave duplicate info. You aren't helping anyone by making it harder to get a clear and concise description of events, both current and recent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.181.35 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The thing is, the article here is not just a concise description of events. It is an encyclopedia article, which deals with the history, effects, and other things related to the storm that you won't see on the news. The concise description of events is left to Wikinews. --Titoxd 22:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, due to the nature of this storm, this requires a HUGE article. This is an unprecedented situation here! CrazyC83 22:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What? Unprecedented? Bigger than Ben Hur?? Katrina is getting way too much attention. Is it far more serious than the 1918 Spanish Flu or the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake?? Have a look at the articles. There is more on Katrina than both of these combined. Leistung 09:14, 30 August 2005 (EST)

All things in time. It will shrink naturally as needs dictate. But right now, the volume of information outweighs the need to trim it. Deleting information now, unless it's blatantly duplicated, is highly counter productive. --Golbez 22:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I think the most important thing is for editors to find the section where the information they have belongs, and verify that it's not already there. A lot of people just keep adding things to the New Orleans section, much of which is duplicated elsewhere, making that section virtually unreadable. Miraculouschaos 18:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inserting dividers in the hopelessly disorganized "Impact by Region:New Orleans" section.Miraculouschaos 20:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the section on Risk to New Orleans could largely be moved to a separate article linked to New Orleans. The risk doesn't pass with Katrina.--Kbk 23:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews far behind

Wikinews's main headline is still "New Orleans announces mandatory evacuation"; this article seems far more current. Think that's just a function of more contributors on WP? ~~ N (t/c) 22:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm afraid that the prominence of Wikipedia makes it more prone for active Wiki-news-editors to come here instead of Wikinews. But that's something good in a way. --Titoxd 23:16, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

I straightened out the intro somewhat in order to reduce awkwardness and improve the summary nature of the introductory paragraph, but I know it still needs more work. Jpers36 23:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The link to Metroblogging New Orleans is consistently being removed from the External links section even though it's a valid source. There's some wikipedians who instantly delete any link to a blog assuming it's inaccurate - I won't get into that here but this link in particular is being sourced by major news sources outside of the US [1] and I know of the national news papers currently writing stories quoting the site. If a link to a local TV broadcast is valid why isn't a link to a local website where the people are talking about what is going on? This isn't some personal blog where people are writing about their feelings and their kittens, it's a city focused blog writing about news on the local level and so far today has been far more up to date than many other sources which are linked without question. Sean Bonner 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

If it's being used as a 'source' it should be cited not external linked. No one is making the argument that it's inaccurate (thought they could, it appears to contain a lot of conflicting information), but rater the external links section isn't the place to link to news sites. The majority of other links are mostly authortative information sources, and not news sites. 24.165.233.150 01:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
For whatever it's worth to the audience out there, I'm sure that Sean's motivations are pure, but I do think he should have mentioned the potential personal interest he has in this matter: He runs metroblogging.com, and presumably benefits directly from the income from the advertising there. 24.165.233.150 01:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I don't benefit directly from it. All income from ads goes back into the project, which is entirely run by volunteers - including myself. I also don't like the assumption that I'm hiding my relationship with metroblogging, it's right on my user page here on wikipedia and all over metroblogging and my own personal sites. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
At the risk of pissing a few people off, I am putting the link back in: I've read though some of it, and I believe it provides useful information about the conditions in the area. I won't start an edit war about it, but I think it ought to be in there.
--Baylink 02:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. Why would we link that site and not CNN, NBC, etc? Wikipedia isn't a news link farm, so a bunch of links to news sites really isn't what we need.Gmaxwell 02:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I should think that would be clear: a) everyone knows where to find CNN and NBC, and b) they're not *there*. When something like *this* is going on, yeah, we sort of *are* a news link farm. No, I wouldn't expect it to survive the Current Events tag, but it *is* useful *now*. And that's not really germane to the issue of how you handled it, anyway.
--Baylink 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How I handled it? I wasn't even the first to remove the link and it has been removed by several other editors, most likely because it just doesn't belong! Look at the links there, they are to government websites.. the red cross, NOAA weather pages... none of them are news sites. Gmaxwell 02:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gmaxwell, clearly, disagrees, and can't be bothered to be polite in his summary comment. Never mind; no reason to include *useful* links here, clearly.
--Baylink 02:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I apologies for being somewhat sharp with my edit summary (as much as calling the link spam can be considered as such), but I thought it was readded by Sean for the umpenteenth time and not by someone else. Gmaxwell 02:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely up for, and welcoming the discussion about where the link fits best, if it's better suited for some other section of the page I have no problem with that but simply removing it because it's a blog is stupid. It's releavent info. Sean Bonner 04:29, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
I've explained to you multiple times that it isn't being removed simply because its a blog, and I just don't know how to make it any more clear. There isn't a basis for us to include that particular site and not include links to a hundred other current events sites. Wikipedia is not a collection of links. 24.165.233.150 12:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't just some current event site, it's people in New Orleans and from New Orleans posting info directly about what is going on. It's not some link for a collection, it's specificly related, as specific as any of the links to local webcams or local news sources. It's not CNN reporting things 3rd hand, it's directly relevent. Major news from all over the world is linking to and quoting from the site - It's not spam for crying out loud. Other people understand this, what are you missing? Sean Bonner 14:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is really rude to keep removing the link to Metroblogging, because metroblogging links to wikipedia in many places. Thats just wrong and bad netiquette. I put the link back, and I expect it to stay! Sean, don't let some moron, who is probably just jealous of your fame, push you around.

The link is not being removed out of jealousy or improper "netiquette", but because it does not conform with Wikipedia's established policies for external links. The term "moron" is a personal attack and is not permitted on Wikipedia. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes. (~~~~). Dystopos 22:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia award?

Considering the circumstances and the amount of vandals that have come, this has to be one of the most organized and best maintained article sites I have ever seen for a current event. Truly remarkable. This sets the standard for hurricane pages, and even for current events as a whole! CrazyC83 01:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aw... <kick> <shuffle> Thanks.  :-)
--Baylink 02:27, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Almost makes seeing the Goatse pic in ASCII form three times last night worth it ;) -Loren 05:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I too want to compliment you people for such a good and factual report. I'm watching this page... and the discussion too :) bsod 02:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, crap. Don't watch the Talk page... :-)
--Baylink 03:13, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Award There is. 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)

Global warming article link?

I posted an external link to this article, Time Magazine: Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?, which was later removed by 24.165.233.150, with the comment, "global warming stuff doesn't belong in this article, try the article on hurricanes..." (here's the diff). I disagree, as the Time article specifically addresses this particular hurricane. I was under the impression that there was an interest in having such information included, per the earlier discussion above. I would like to avoid a dispute on this point, so I would like to know what the consensus of the community is as to whether this external link should be included. -- BDAbramson talk 03:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing special about this hurricane related to global warming. Material about how overactive this season has been, or on what causes hurricanes in general really should go into the main hurricane article or into the article on the season... If someone is interested in the global warming angle, they'll also be interested in all the information we provide on why this season is more active than others. If there is something special about global warming and *this* storm that I'm missing, then it should be discussed in the text, not just tossed out as an external link. Gmaxwell 03:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:BDAbramson and earlier comments that it should be here. This hurricane being a particularly devastating one and people are talking about the link in general, so no reason to not have it there. Saying it belongs on the main hurricane page is also true, but not an argument for it not being here. DreamGuy 05:06, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well I managed to mostly sway BD, checkout his talk page and mine. After looking into the matter more indepth I also object to the link because it appears to be random speculation by some journalist which is not tied back to any verifiable research. 24.165.233.150 06:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:BDAbramson, link the article. --Titoxd 22:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[removed long article that was copyright violation copied and pasted here without permission trying to start a fight about global warming... link to it if you want, don't steal it.] DreamGuy 22:21, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Harrison MS deaths

WDSU has just reported that the Harrison County, MS EOC has just reported 50 storm-related deaths.
--Baylink 03:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While I can believe that number, we should wait for more confirmation - they heavily overestimated with Charley ("dozens" reported dead in Punta Gorda, in reality less than 10 died there). CrazyC83 03:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it is now widely reported. For now, they should be listed as direct deaths unless an indirect cause is mentioned (i.e. building fire). CrazyC83 03:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fatality charts

Is there a better way to illustrate the chart of fatalities by state? An "inland" death chart listing (as of now) the single death in Georgia, and separated from the totals of Miss., La., Ala., and Fla. Seems to me these charts should be merged, but it wouldn't be appropriate under only coastal or inland headings. Thoughts? --Twigboy 03:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The inland chart will likely grow as deaths from Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, New York and Ontario, among other states/provinces are eventually added... after all, Katrina has only just started affecting the inland areas. The listings will eventually grow. CrazyC83 03:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but my point is that the distinction between coastal/inland fatalities seems to be arbitrary. For example, Hinds County, MS appears to be more than 100 miles inland, yet it's listed as "coastal." Is it coastal just because it's in a state that has a Gulf coast? --Twigboy 03:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Coastal states here are MS, AL, LA and FL - the states directly affected from the coastal impact. It is easiest to keep the states together (so, even if it happens in, say, Huntsville AL, it will go in the coastal list under Alabama). Inland states(/provinces) are everything else. CrazyC83 04:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a table that present the total tally, coastal and inland. How about a new section call "Summary on casualities", just before the two sections? --Vsion 04:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cnn reported from AP 55 people dead. Thats a good enough source to put that number in the artilce. Also we should metion it has now become one of the legendary hurricanes. Such as besty, camille, hugo, Andrew.

I just combined the sections and renamed it "Impact by region". It will also show a combined death toll. CrazyC83 04:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Andrew

  • Anyone else notice a striking similarity in the path of Andrew to Katrina's? I thought Katrina was following a strange path until I saw Andrew. Through lower Florida, across the Gulf, through Louisiana, and back up towards the Northeast. Staxringold 05:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The tracks are somewhat similar, but Katrina's strongest landfall was its second instead of its first.
E. Brown, Hurricane enthusiast - Squawk Box 21:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

A range of IPs has been inserting random characters in words all over the article. Someone, please report this "Sandbox vandal" to WP:VIP, since it's almost impossible to do it myself, trying to keep up with the vandal.

Kind regards, Titoxd 05:17, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tossed a variety of IP addresses over there. Hopefully they aren't AOL ones, because if they are, blocking won't help.DreamGuy 05:25, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Well, it sure has been a lot quieter now. Thank you very much! --Titoxd 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

relevant link?

I reverted an edit adding this link: [2]. I don't object to having it in the article, but I'm unsure if it should be there. What do you people think? --Titoxd 05:24, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Not relevant enough. Would be fine in an article on "New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers" if that one is ever written, but not here. Shanes 05:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
shrug, I added it I thought it was quite relevant. This is why:
New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers faces funding cuts in 2006
From the article: "The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now." This article addresses the future preparedness of the New Orleans to Hurricanes like Katrina. It could be added to future predictions, or a section to reaction to the disaster.

Levee break

CNN is reporting there is a two block wide breach in the 17th St Canal levee. Lake Pontchartrain is pouring into Orleans Parish. Water around Tulane University Hospital is rising one inch every minute. Won't put in article until corroborated online. --Golbez 06:38, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

CNN has just reported it again, statement from the Army Corps of Engineers on the breach is expected within the next two hours. Also reported here (second article down): [3]-Loren 07:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Per CNN 0302 CDT: Hospital evacuations temporarily placed on hold. Army Corps of Engineers currently in meeting discussing levee breach. -Loren 08:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
200 ft break confirmed by NOFD officials. -Loren 08:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moved section on "Previous Prediction"

I moved the section on "Previous Prediction" to Predictions of hurricane risk for New Orleans. I feel this is the most suitable section to be transfered. Ok? --Vsion 07:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread looting?

The article says "Since Lousiana and Mississippi is an economically depressed area, widespread looting has been reported in hurricane stricken areas." I don't know if I should take this out as I haven't heard of widespread looting, only incidents, and I haven't heard of Louisiana and Missisppi being 'economically depressed.' I don't know, I may be wrong here, hence the posting. 129.110.199.227 07:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the level of economic depression in Louisiana, but I dropped the "since" word, as I believe looting can occur everywhere, given the "right" circumstances. But, yeah, maybe we should just drop the whole statement about economic depressed area. Especially if it's not even true.... Shanes 07:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and take out the economically depressed bit, and the widespread bit, and just put 'incidents of looting.' At the very worst, it means the same thing anyway, just more general. Dafrito 07:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I think I beat you too it ;-). Shanes 07:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
*cries.* Dafrito 08:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I thought looters were shot on sight in the US. So looting is very unlikely. As for economically depressed, the average person gets $27000 per year in Louisiana. Easy to live on that for a family of, say 6 (6x$27000)! Leistung 10:07, 30 August 2005 (EST)
I don't think you and I are talking about the same US. Perhaps the United States of Mexico, but not the United States of America. Also, average income is the mean, not the median. Where income inequality is significant, like Louisiana (and the USA in general), the mean will be far higher than the median. A more typical family earns $27000 per year total. 24.34.190.187 10:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, Mexican Wikipedians read this article too... --Titoxd 17:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Looters may be summarily shot by the police, army, or property owners. Extraordinary measures, combined with an impressive show of force, help to discourage looting and to disperse crowds that would now find a normal show of force non-threatening." Wikipedia quote from Looting
Leistung 19:40, 30 August 2005 (CET)
Key word in all that is "may". Normally, at least with police/national guard forces, that does not begin happening until things reach near riot levels in most areas. Individual property owners might shoot on sight, but in this case, most are not around their property and any potential looters would shy away from an obvious armed pressence for 'safer' targets. One more thing, despite the view of our nation presented by Hollywood, most Americans do not reach for a gun first. While there may be shootings reported, it will not be widespread unless things get much much worse. Donovan Ravenhull 19:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katrina in S. Illinois and the Purchase?

This section is still on the page: "Katrina may come close to the Ohio River Valley, even scraping southern Illinois, causing storms to rise from the remnants that are left behind." The forecast track doesn't have it coming anywhere near there, instead crossing the Kentucky line around Hopkinsville and heading into Indiana or Ohio. It hasn't been forecast to go through the Purchase or Illinois to my knowledge (if it does, good, we need the rain) - flood watches don't even cover any county north or west of Graves.

Also, is it true that TVA is opening spillways? I heard (as of Sunday) the rivers were low enough to impede barge traffic. 24.34.190.187 10:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the storm is not a single point or line following a projected track. Check out this current radar, Southern Illinois, as well as Indiana and Ohio are feeling the effects of Katrina. --Holderca1 19:15, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Intro inconsistency

From the intro, last para:

.... and 80% of New Orleans is said to be under water. Currently 750,000 people are without power in the New Orleans area, and it may be several weeks before power is restored. The parts of the city with the worst flooding were in the east, where the storm was most severe. Roughly 40% of the city is under water...

I'm thinking it's one or the other, personally... J.K. 10:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I removed the 40% and put the 25 foot deep with the eighty percent. That's coming from an interview with the New Orleans mayor, though, for full disclosure, he said "The city of New Orleans is in a state of devastation. We probably have 80 percent of our city underwater. With some sections of our city, the water is as deep as 20 feet." So I guess we should just quote that directly, since he said probably, too. Dafrito 11:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of the quote, but can you find a cite? J.K. 11:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
CNN cites it here, I believe. [4] Fifth paragraph or so. Dafrito 11:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters cites the quote here, too, [5] Dafrito 11:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, here's the video of the interview. [6] Dafrito 11:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New Orleans damage report

Should we summarize all that into one paragraph or a series of paragraphs, or is it our intention to keep the reports mostly chronological? Dafrito 13:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it makes sense to refactor all of the information into a series of paragraphs, but I think that would be hard to do at this time. I would find it hard to know what to keep, especially with all of the rapid changes that are occurring. It's probably a better idea to wait until the flow of information slows down before massaging it into a more encyclopedic form. That being said, be bold. --timc | Talk 14:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Higher death tolls

AP reports up to 80 deaths in harrison county alone. So I changed the number to 54-80 people killed in the deaths chart. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050830/ap_on_re_us/hurricane_katrina_3;_ylt=An2t.4FWAg4ftOwvj9yMQYsbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl Leave it for now.

I just updated all the lists to show that (64-90 direct deaths total). If anything says "up to", it is definitely best to show it the way you did, as a range. CrazyC83 15:59, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The AP report said that it is the MS governor who gave this figure 50-80. I've updated the Mississippi section on this. When changing the fatalities chart, please update the relevant region section also, so that other can verify what's the source and time-stamp, and know how to update it when things changes. thks. --Vsion 21:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lousiana closed to incoming traffic

WDSU TV has reported that Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco has ordered the police to block all incoming roadways into Lousiana. Zzxcnet 15:48, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean into Louisiana from Southern Mississippi? I doubt they'd be blocking roadways across the entire state (from Texas into Shreveport, for example). Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:36, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Breaking News (by source)

Place unsorted developments here seen/heard on local news streams, local radio and other sources.


Clarion-Ledger

Beauvoir (Biloxi, Mississippi), final retirement home of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major Biloxi historic attraction, was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. The site also contains the Jefferson Davis Presidential Library. No word on damage to the library or other historic buildings on the site.

WDSU

National guard refugees are bringing more people into the Superdome.
Looting is out of control. Grocery, retail stores being looted in flooded areas.
At least 200 people rescued from boats, rooftops.
People remaining in city that can get out are urged by the mayor to leave via the Crescent City Connection, the only remaining outbound route.
-- Zzxcnet 15:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Patients are being evacuated via helicopter at Tulane Medical Center.
The Superdome is surrounded by two feet of water.
-- Zzxcnet 16:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Highway 90 has been "destroyed", and is "no longer a highway" - in the words of a WDSU anchor.
The Hardrock Casino has "50% damage".
The fire chief in Gulfport estimates that 75% of the buildings have major roof damage.
-- Zzxcnet 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You mean Highway 90? Mike H (Talking is hot) 20:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
yes. I fixed it. Zzxcnet 21:44, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Gov. Kathleen Blanco said Tuesday afternoon that people now huddled in the Superdome and other rescue centers need to be evacuated." [7] (and see CNN summary below). --timc | Talk 21:50, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CNN

Also CNN has shown video of the alabama coastline where small to big yatchs and even small container ships have washed ashore and some very far inland.
CNN reports: "Rising waters force evacuation of tens of thousands who sought refuge in New Orleans rescue centers, state governor says. More soon." --timc | Talk 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WWL-TV

Congress is working on passing an emergency spending bill for rebuilding and recovery efforts in the affected areas.
Officials may attempt to use boxcars filled with dirt/sand to block the flooding on the 17th street canal.. as they are afraid the sandbags would be washed away. Zzxcnet 21:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Worst hurricane since Camille?

There have been reports that this strm may have killed hundrends and it is quite possibile due to the fact many people were in there homes during the 25-30 foot storm surge. This article explains. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050830/ts_nm/weather_katrina_deaths_dc_1;_ylt=AtZFfubsrlut5mf181oj4eUbLisB;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

I think it's getting to the point of calling this the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, considering the new reports rolling in. The optimism from yesterday has quickly vanished. --tomf688<TALK> 19:31, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
The Galveston Hurricane of 1900 killed about 8,000 people and destroyed the city's long-term prospects; Houston is famous today because of Galveston's loss. I put a link to this near the bottom of the article on Katrina, but a chap called Golbez took it out, perhaps thinking it was inappropriate. I don't agree with that, but I'm not going to start a petty war with someone who could block me. -Ashley Pomeroy 22:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not going to dignify such martyrdom with a response. Too bad, too, we could have come to an agreement. --Golbez 22:09, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

French Quarter

Does anyone know what kind of damage has the French Quarter sustained? It seems to be missing from the article. --129.219.6.86 19:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC) (User:Titoxd, who is too lazy to sign in). Validating my edit. --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is being reported that it has started to flood, even though it was dry last night. Zzxcnet 19:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; WDSU(/WAPT) showed tape last night from a corner approximately 3 blocks from their studios with dry streets.
--71.100.10.116 20:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a page to which we can refer to add that information to the article? --Titoxd 21:11, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I have video archives of WDSU and WWL-TV that I've saved from the live streams since before the storm hit. I can get segments of this to use as source material if neccessary. Zzxcnet 21:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Katrina category

Would a Category be useful here? Not sure if such would be useful long term, but in the short term I would think it would be very useful to have a single way to link articles for the variuos effected areas, and other related articles. But I wanted to gage opinion before I just went and created just a thing. TexasAndroid 21:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for New Orleans?

There is now a need for a separate article on Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans as the section is expanding fast; leave a summary on this page instead. I need to rush to another place, can someone help to do it? thks. --Vsion 22:06, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a seperate article would be needed for this, however I lack the experience to do this myself, on a page as important as this one. The fate of the city lies in fixing the breeched levees, and efforts to fix it are underway now. I suppose quite a lot of information about this will come in in the next few hours/night, and the situation at the superdome also will generate text. Also it will relieve the main page from the specific New Orleans situation. bsod 22:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many Images

As of me writing this, there are nine images in the Preparations and Storm History sections alone. That is obviously too many? Which should we get rid of? Edit: I think the one under transportation and military should be first to go. The one with the track is unnecessary since the wind swath image implies the track already. joturner 22:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Katrina&oldid=22207951"