This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Was Hurricane Katrina, "the storm of the century?" Storm05 20:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would certainly say so. -- Golbez 20:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A little too early to say, considering that we're only 6 years into the current century. Who's to say if, in 50 years, we have another Typhoon Tip spawning somewhere in the Pacific that takes out the entire nation of Japan? Really, I hope not ... but who can predict the future? Dr. Cash 21:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I think it is safe to say it is the current contender for hurricane of the centure untill somthing worse comes along...

Well, we can look at the 20th century to compare. Wordwide, there were at least 4 storms much worse than Katrina from the 20th century: 1970 Bhola cyclone killed 500,000 and sparked a war between India and Pakistan; 1991 Bangladesh Cyclone killed 150,000 and left 10 million homeless; Typhoon Nina (1975) killed 200,000 and left untold millions homeless; and Hurricane Mitch killed 11,000 or more and left 1.5-2 million homeless. In the United States, the 1900 Galveston Hurricane and 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane were probably worse than Katrina, but because of improved preparedness these storms would be much less catastrophic if they struck today; the 1926 Miami Hurricane would, if the NHC is to be believed, be even more destructive than Katrina if it were to strike today. Given trends of global warming and/or cyclic patterns of Atlantic hurricanes, one would expect that Katrina probably will not be the worst storm of the 21st century. But, to quote from above, it is the current contender until something worse comes along. — jdorje ( talk) 07:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Katrina was however, by many peoples' definition, the Perfect Storm: A massive, intense hurricane that hit the critically vulnerable Mississippi Delta, killed thousands and made New Orleans uninhabitable. Katrina is also an agonizingly terrible name for such an epic hurricane. It sounds like a frickin' porn star (then again, so does Isabel). Big Kat's replacement name is just as bad. Kendra would have been much better. All hail the Great Hurricane of 2005! -- § Hurricane E RIC § ^Damages archive 00:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

A writer to info-en@wikimedia.org has suggested that three additional NGOs be mentioned by name:

• Convoy of Hope
• The Samaritan's Purse
• Operation Blessing

Dont forget

• Handsonusa (before they linked with Handsonnetwork) There are many articles on the web about them and what they accomplished in Mississippi.

I myself am far from expert enough on this topic to evaluate this suggestion, so I have instead passed it along to those of you who follow this page so that you may act upon it, if warranted. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving sections around to fit into either the impact or aftermath sections reveals something that was long suspect: there is basically no information in the article on the impact of the storm. All the article's coverage details the responses at various levels, the looting, or various other aspects of the aftermath. The reason for this is obvious and easily confirmed by looking at the references: all the media coverage was of the aftermath. The problem is exacerbated because the TCR, where most of the veteran TC editors get their information, only gives a brief overview of the damage ("the damage caused by Katrina is well beyond the scope of this article to fully describe"). But there is no way to find out what was actually damaged, or where.

So, to go forward with improving this article, the first thing to do is to expand the impact section. DO NOT add aftermath information here. We need an explanation, probably one paragraph per county/parish, of the scale of the devastation. We need a lot more attention given to the mississippi coastline (which for some reason never gets any attention, despite suffering the worst damage). We probably need to get rid of the "Space Shuttle" and "Internet" sections (moved into the effects by region article); these should just have a sentence or two in the appropriate place.

Next (or concurrently), we need to continue condensing the aftermath section. Currently there is one page on looting and 3-4 pages on the responses at various levels. We do not, for instance, need to know that "Volunteers from amateur radio's emergency service wing, the Amateur Radio Emergency Service, provided emergency communications for federal, state and local officials. Over one thousand volunteer operators traveled to affected areas to provide communications in areas where the communications infrastructure had been damaged or totally destroyed, relaying everything from 911 traffic to messages home." Such information is not particularly useful since the impact section doesn't even describe where exactly the "affected areas" are.

Finally (or concurrently), we need to expand the "Criticism of Government Response" section. This somehow got cut from the article entirely (previous information was so POV that that may have been the best choice), but we do need a *brief* *summary* of the criticism. Hurricane Floyd and Hurricane Andrew may perhaps provide examples here, since the exact same criticism followed in the aftermath of those storms. Note that the one paragraph that's in that section now probably doesn't deserve to stay in the main article at all.

Once this is all done I think we will have a decently-structured decently-balanced article. The remaining problem will be figuring out what to do with the Media section.

As a side note, it is interesting that the problems this article has are exactly the same as what the Hurricane Camille article has. That article is fairly lengthy but has just 5 sentences covering the impact.

— jdorje ( talk) 04:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Various sources, including a journal article (also now published in full on line) by a couple former Nat'l Hurr. Ctr. officials, list the largest hurricane fatalities in US history, after Galveston, this way: 2) Okeechobee, South Florida, 1928, 2500-3000 3) Independence hurricane, Florida to Newfoundland, 1775, 4000 US-Canada 4) Eastern Gulf of Mexico coast, 1780, 2000, 5) Sea Islands, South Carolina-Georgia, 1893, 1000-2500, 6) Louisiana, 1893, 1100-2000.

Katrina's eventual likely toll of around 2700 will put it into 3rd, not 2nd, based on the rather well documented (not "official" undercounts) of 3300-3900 for the 1928 storm. Furthermore, the admittedly approximate numbers for the two 1700's storms were done with a fairly rigorous methodology and should not be ignored as at present? DLinth 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Your numbers are a bit off. List of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes has a complete list, based on official sources, namely the NHC. Going by journal entries is a bad idea since they get their info second-hand. The confusion mostly stems from deaths caused inside versus outside the US. — jdorje ( talk) 04:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Namely:

• 1928 Okeechobee Hurricane killed over 4,000, but only 2,500+ of these were in the US. You are welcome to speculate on how many "more than" 2,500 were killed, but the official number remains 2,500.
• Newfoundland Hurricane of 1775, aka the "Independence Hurricane" (note it's 1775 not 1776) killed over 4,000, but most of these were British/Irish sailors off Newfoundland.
• The Gulf hurricane of 1780 Atlantic hurricane season did indeed kill 2,000. Sources are sketchy but it looks like those were in Cuba, not the US.
• The 1893 Sea Islands Hurricane and 1893 Chenier Caminanda Hurricane are about right.

— jdorje ( talk) 04:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• Regarding the 1928 storm, no, the official number is not 2500, it is "at least 2500" (in the same NHS source that you cite.) Other sources point out that most deaths were rural, minority, and definitely underreported, and you will see 3000 as a figure. So perhaps this article should say that Katrina "may", not "will" exceed this storm's fatalities!
• Regarding the 1775 storm, yes, by far most fatalities, over 3000, were sailors on George's Banks. As these are in mostly US waters (that maritime boundary has been settled), they are mostly "off Massachusetts", not "off Newfoundland." That should count for this "in the U.S." tabulation. (Just as non-US citizen deaths are counted for 9/11) Other deaths from this storm occurred from Florida to Maine. Or are we not counting anything before July 4, 1776?
• No, using the same source that you reference, I am referencing the Oct. 17-21 1780 entry for "Eastern Gulf of Mexico", which would be almost entirely in US waters. This is separate from the #1 Atlantic storm a week earlier in the eastern Caribbean that never got west of Florida. But as this storm is not reported above 2000 anywhere, it looks as though Katrina will fall into fourth, not second, place in the history of hurricanes in the U.S. as it hits the 2400-2600 fatalities mark.
• Surely you don't mean to suggest that academic, peer-juried journal articles have "second-hand" info and are somehow inferior to internet sources. DLinth 18:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The official source is the NHC. You can easily see their list of deadliest Atlantic hurricanes. It's possible they don't count the 1775 or 1780 storms (assuming you're right and those deaths occurred in the modern U.S.) because that was before the current U.S. existed (though in the case of 1780 this is sketchy). Also note there were, astoundingly, *3* extremely deadly hurricanes in October of 1780, so the potential for confusion is high; however based on 5 minutes research it looked to me like the "eastern gulf of mexico" storm probably struck both cuba and florida. — jdorje ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe people should update this article now. The death toll has changed. Astroview120mm 05:42, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's been kept updated. The death toll is as up-to-date as we know. — Cuivi é nen, Thursday, 23 March 2006 @ 00:21 ( UTC)

I just reverted an edit by an anon because I felt like their edit was more appropriate for a discussion page. I didn't want to completely delete it as not to discourage newbies. -- Anaraug 09:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

what where all the effects katrina had on new orleans

what was the immediate response to katrina (non political)

what is the long term response to katrina's impact (non political)

what faliures where there for response

-- 210.49.54.203

While we are generally glad to answer your questions, don't expect Wikipedians to write your research paper or newspaper article for you. You can find all of the information you ask for in the article. Cheers. — Cuivi é nen, Friday, 24 March 2006 @ 02:45 ( UTC)

I'd like to see a timeline in the article, perhaps in table form, for easy reference of when Katrina hit where, and when the levees in New Orleans breached, and so on. -- zandperl 23:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The timeline is here. It's pretty detailed. I don't think it should be part of the article itself. It is appropriate being linked to it. The article is already long enough as it is. Dr. Cash 20:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I recently returned to look at this article after being away from this space for some time. I am working on current response efforts at a different site FEMAanswers.org. The www.FEMAanswers.org site was getting about 100 hits per month coming from this article, but now gets none, and I see that reference to current recovery efforts was removed. I think that section should be restored. Any reaction from those editors who did good work to improve this article? By posing this question, I also hope to entice one English wikipedia editor to help at FEMAanswers.org. So far, I just have help from a German speaker, who has been great. Thanks! Castellanet 23:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have under taken a project to completely copyedit this article. Yes, I know that all of you have been gradually doing so over time, but I'm specifically focusing on copyediting, etc. However, this is such a massive article that I can't do it by myself. If any of you could look out for a few sections, I'd be appreciative. Omni ND 22:41, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The first thing to do is to extend the impact section. For all the insane length of this article, it hardly tells anything about the impact; particularly the Mississippi coast which was hardest hit is barely even mentioned. — jdorje ( talk) 23:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

We all knew it, but it's not in the article, it is however in the intro. I know you guys take lots of pride in this so I'll leave adding this section to a vet.

Please stop adding 'Retirement' as its own section subheading. It doesn't look very good as a subheading with only one line. This is lame. Dr. Cash 00:10, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not like it in its own section but it certainly doesn't belong in the storm history section. It belongs in the aftermath section, but not in any of the other sub-sections. The easy solution of course is just to write some more text so the section has a full paragraph. — jdorje ( talk) 01:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, it really needs to appear in the ToC somewhere. I had to do a search to find that you had hidden it in among the meteorological history (a very odd place). — jdorje ( talk) 01:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Granted, maybe the meteorological history section wasn't the best place for it. But I am not convinced that the aftermath section is, either. And it DEFINITELY does NOT need it's own subsection. What more detail needs to be added on this topic? The hurricane name was retired! Great that's all. Provide the reference and move on. I've moved this back to the opening paragraph. It should be easy to find there. Dr. Cash 02:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if there is a place where it shouldn't be, it is the opening paragraph, as that indicates that we're going to go further in depth about the storm's retirement further down the article. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 02:28, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate subsection in the aftermath section is an established precedent. Only if there is no aftermath section exists does it go in the Impact section, and only if the Aftermath has no other sub-sections does it lose the "Retirement" section heading. This is done for every single other Atlantic hurricane article that I'm aware of, including several FAs. — jdorje ( talk) 04:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the opening paragraph is where it goes. But I still don't see how it would fit as a subheading item under either "Impact" or "Aftermath". If you look at the subheadings under both of those, and the topics:

• Impact
  • Death toll
  • Space shuttle program
  • Internet
• Aftermath
  • Economic effects
  • Looting and violence
  • Fed. response
  • States' response
  • International response
  • NGO response
  • Analysis of NO levee failures
  • criticism of gov't response

A topic covering the retirement just doesn't seem to fit with any of the subheadings. All of these topics deal with the actual effects on the economy, on various government programs, and on individuals. The mere fact that the hurricane was retired doesn't seem to fit with these other topics, as it just deals with the semantics of the hurricane-naming system and is not really a direct effect that the hurricane actually caused. Maybe if we put a bit of introductory text at the very beginning of the aftermath section, introducing some of these items of the aftermath, and then mentioning that the hurricane name is retired, is the way to go. But I'm still opposed to a specific subheading under aftermath for the retirement. Dr. Cash 16:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right. That's why it gets its own subheading. This is standard practice in all tropical cyclone articles; Hurricane Dennis and Hurricane Floyd are both featured and both have retirement subsections. — Cuivi é nen, Saturday, 8 April 2006 @ 00:16 ( UTC)

Holding up the Dennis article as an example of that isn't necessarily appropriate here, as it wasn't retired when it got FA status. Also Hurricane Gloria the other FA storm hasn't got a retirement subsection. However most other storm articles do as it makes sense that all retired storms (and suprising non-retirements) have a section on it. Nilfanion 00:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that Dennis isn't a good example, though it will quickly become one. Iniki and Gloria also follow what I said above: the Aftermath section has no subsections (though this is problematic since then the seealso is missing). Hurricane Floyd is the best example. I believe every other retired hurricane has a retirement subsection. — jdorje ( talk) 03:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

However, if you believe the Aftermath section is not a good place, where do you suggest it go? The meteorological history is obviously inappropriate, as is the preparations section. I'm against putting it in the impact section, because it should generally go at the end of the article. Do you want it to have its own top-level section? — jdorje ( talk) 03:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I think the Aftermath section here should be much shorter, and instead the media, politics, etc. should be used in detail for other Katrina-related articles. Then stick the Retirement section in at the end (like with all other retirees). Pobbie Rarr 06:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

In short, I agree with that. There are numerous discussions above about article reorganization, but work proceeds slowly. — jdorje ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I don't think that an article who is trying to learn about the storm wants to know what 20 NGOs did to help. That should be moved elsewhere, and stick it at the end of the Aftermath section with a level-3 heading. The question is, where should it be moved? Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The following is a link to a report, first hand, on the status of New Orleans just after the hurricane. I have looked at what I can find for articles about the situation in Wiki, but none of them seem to be the place to put this link - no real location for 'what it was like' in the city in the days just following the storm. Perhaps some of you, with time to look at this, and more familiarity with the Katrina articles, could suggest a place. http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-2/556/556_04_RealHeroes.shtml -- Dumarest 13:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The international response section takes up more space than it is needed. (1/3 of the template.) I am proposing that it be removed as the articles are mostly stubs and are ALL linked from the main international response page. -- Kunzite 03:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent idea. However this template page is not the place to discuss it. Discuss it on Talk:Hurricane Katrina. — jdorje ( talk) 04:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Okie dokie. -- Kunzite 02:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 03:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

No offense to the guy who uploaded it, but this pic is terrible. It's huge and takes up way too much of the page and you can barely make the Katrina track out through the crowd of other tracks in there. I really don't see what value it adds. Based on this, I think it should be removed. -- § Hurricane E RIC § ^Damages archive 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think our track map image is better, and since it is based on best-track data, they're redundant. Also, I've removed the paragraph that talked about Rita's and Wilma's tracks; that has already been covered in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season article. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 22:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. The hurricane track map really didn't add anything to the Hurricane Katrina article. It might go in a general article about historic hurricanes, but even that is questionable. The image was really a bit too crowded. Dr. Cash 00:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice illustration of the activity of the 2005 season, but that's still not for this article. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 21:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a cropping of Image:2005 Atlantic hurricane season map.png, which we already have... Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point. :P -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 21:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been changing IR pictures into visible ones. I think this Katrina picture is one of the best I've seen, so I decided to put it on the infobox. If there is some problem with the picture, you can revert the act. Also, about the caption, I'm not sure if it is written gramatically perfect, so, if there is a mistake feel free to correct it, since my native language is not English. juan andrés 02:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The AfD Discussion closed with a no consensus result but there was a sizable support for merging. The Article would ideally be slimmed down and merged into the Aftermath section of this article. -- Strothra 21:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't merge it here, it's too minor to be merged. Instead, add details about the devastation to the entire Mississippi area to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi and then merge some of those details here. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that if that were to be done it should be Impacts of Hurricane Katrina so that it does not leave out the other areas impacted by the storm. -- Strothra 21:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem would be that it would become a huge article, and we had already subdivided this article several times, per geographical area, and the articles are listed on {{ Katrina}}. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no, and NO! Absolutely, positively, DO NOT MERGE Hardy Jackson here! While I feel sorry for the guy after suffering as much as he did, the article is still nonetheless barely even noteworthy in an encyclopedia. At the very least, the article should be renamed to Harvey Jackson, which is his real name, as was corrected by the news media. Why wikipedia has not corrected this is anyone's guess. Dr. Cash 21:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC) P.S. Ok, so seeing what Harvey Jackson actually links to, I can see why it hasn't been renamed. But still, Hardy Jackson is NOT his name.

According to the article itself, you have it backwards (the real name, according to a footnote in it, is Hardy not Harvey). -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 21:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with this sentiment. The information there should not be "merged" because the vast majority of it is not noteworthy enough to be included in any of the katrina's sub-articles. At most there should be a sentence or two mention in some sub-article about the media's involvement in the storm (or possibly a media subsection in the Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi article, as mentioned below). — jdorje ( talk) 23:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the proposed merge to Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi, a more appropriate destination. Please continue this discussion there. Tijuana Brass ^{¡Épa!- E@} 22:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

HPC (NWS) information on Katrina - It seems that a lot of that information came straight off this article! We have a lot more clout if OFFICIAL government agencies are using Wikipedia as a source to get the official numbers! (We had to use dozens of news sources to get to the correct numbers) CrazyC83 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that is what is going on with that article. To me it looks like they used the TCR as their primary source, the same as us, hence the similarities.-- Nilfanion 00:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Why are there four paragraphs devoted to preparations in New Orleans, while the only thing I see about Mississippi is "Mandatory evacuations were issued for large areas of southeast Louisiana as well as coastal Mississippi and Alabama."

That discrepancy's no good. Any good emergency manager in coastal Mississippi would have known that what happened in Camille wwas about to happen again, and I'm sure we could find some reports to expand upon that. 238 people were killed in Mississippi. Camille killed 143 there with 1960s warning skill. What happened?-- SomethingFunny 23:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Katrina	Category 5 Hurricane
Wind Speed	Pressure
175 mph (280 km/h) (1-minute sustained)	902 mbar ( hPa)
Durration	Deaths
Formed: August 23, 2005 — Dissipated: August 31, 2005	≥1,605
Damage	Areas effected
$75 billion (2005 USD) (costliest Atlantic hurricane in history)	Bahamas Florida Cuba Louisiana Mississippi Alabama most of eastern North America
Hurricane Season	See Also
2005

It takes out half the screen, is very intrusive and breaks completely consistency between articles. I'm not sure what is wrong with the current infobox. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 01:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with it, but what I was doing was trying to make another one for the small boxes in the season page, but it wrong so I wondered if this work for the main pages. Tcatron565 7:10, 6 May 2006 (CST)

I agree with Tito that the infobox is way too big horizontally. The colors also don't match at the top between the right and left sides, and the image size difference makes the whole thing look a bit lopsided. What's wrong with the current infobox? Dr. Cash 03:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that people who were affected by New Orleans should be referred to as evacuees (or victims, or survivors), not refugees (as has been done in this article). Perhaps one may feel that I am raising concern about nothing. But tax paying citizens of our country who have had their lives ruined deserve better than to be referred to as refugees. Refugees leave their home due to persecution or some other factor; evacuees leave their homes because of factors such as a natural disasater (distinction can clearly be found in any dictionary). Because African-Americans were disproportionately affected by Hurricane Katrina (in direct contrast to the white majority of this country), using the terms refugee seems divisive in this context (i.e. "them" versus "us" mentality). Perhaps "evacuee" isn't a strong enough term to convey the magnitude of suffering, "victim" or "survivor" probably are the best terms to use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.95.10 ( talk • contribs)

Cut from "New Orleans" section:

• The government also established several "refuges of last resort" for citizens who could not leave the city, including the massive Louisiana Superdome, which sheltered approximately 26,000 people and provided them with food and water for several days as the storm came ashore. ^[1]

• The end result was that hundreds of thousands of Orleans residents and tourists were unable to evacuate.

• many parishes were not able to provide sufficient transportation for citizens who did not have private means of evacuation

All three of these sentences make the claim that there were tens of thousands of people who could not leave the city. I would like to see sources to support this point of view, including the reasoning used by this POV's advocates.

Did they base this on surveys of survivors? ("There were no buses out of the city, by the time I heard the evacuation order.")

Was this a theory, based on the number of people who didn't own their own cars?

Does this argument take into account those who knew the storm was coming and heard the predictions that the storm surge was predicted to be higher than the levees - and dose it make a distinction between (1) those who made every attempt to leave as soon as they know there was deadly danger, and (2) those who waited for the mandatory evacuation order and (3) those who chose to risk the chance of dying in the flood for various reasons? ("I can't leave my house, it's too precious to me.")

I'm not disputing how much advantage the rich and middle class had over poor people. Nor am I declaring that everyone who stayed was a fool-hardy volunteer. I am just asking for sources to back up the point of view that many people could not leave because there was not enough public transportation for them.

If it's so obviously true as to be common knowledge, then would someone please help me by googling up some support for this? Numbers of buses and trains, their capacity; time of the first "storm surge" announcement; time of the mandatory emergency evacuation notice; anecdotes of people who tried and failed to get out because of the transportation shortage, etc. should be easy to find if this is not simply a POV claim by anti-Bush forces.

And even if it *is* a POV claim, it should be easy to find the people who made the claims. THe Times-Picayune reference above didn't have anything about "could not leave the city" - it just called the Astrodome a "refuge of last resort". -- Uncle Ed 20:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A study from the University of Colorado-Boulder, quoted in the Katrina Congressional Report, page 20, said this:

"[P]redominantly working-class African-Americans did not evacuate because they did not have the financial resources to do so.”²¹" Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a good start. Now, how much money does it take to leave a city? And how many people tried, but failed, to get this amount of money?

It only costs around $25 to leave New York City by train.

Maybe we need to expand our fruit basket, because we might be comparing apples and oranges. Were the people who stayed unable to get out or merely unsure that could afford to remain out once they left? ("Where will I leave? How will I get food for my children?")

I think there are two distinct, but related issues here.

1. How hard was it to leave (by public transportation or whatever)?
2. How hard was it perceived to be, to remain outside the city for a few days or weeks?

Surely it's much easier for middle-class people to drive their cars (or take a bus or train or plane) to another state. They can live in a motel for a few weeks on savings or credit cards till they find a new job and a place to live. No one's saying it's easy for poor people to relocate. This indeed raises a larger issue.

But the claims I cut only had to do with ability to evacuate and avoid dying in the hurricane or the predicted flooding.

My old question remains, although I will now add a new question:

• Who says that "hundreds of thousands of Orleans residents and tourists were unable to evacuate"?
  • What prevented them? Not enough trains and buses available at any price?
  • Literally could not scrape up the train fare or bus fare? (Even to save their lives?)
• For those who chose to stay, was it primarily because they found the prospect of permanent relocation too difficult (financially or otherwise)?

Please help me try to answer these questions. I don't want to leave the article in a state where it claims (with no sources!) that over 100,000 people could not leave the city. Again, if it's so obvious as to be common knowledge, surely even ONE source can explain this obvious fact. (I will now try to find the UCB report.) -- Uncle Ed 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, 80% of the city's population rode on public transportation (page 111 of the report), and that 100,000 did not have any means of private transportation (page 113) so it is highly unlikely that they had the resources to drive away. Several buses that could have been used for evacuation purposes were not used (we have the picture in the Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina article), and combined with a late evacuation order, many people did not have the time to evacuate, or suffered "Hurricane fatigue" from previous evacuations, (page 114) and the city's "survival" from Hurricane Camille. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 23:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone help me find the source of the oft-repeated claims that poor and black New Orleans residents (1) could not get out of the city (and therefore died helplessly) or (2) died in greater proportions than whites (or "the rich")?

As above, I'm not asserting the opposite! I'm just asking for sources. If it's common knowledge, it should be easy to find sources. Fair enough? -- Uncle Ed 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what numbers you are expecting, but from the Katrina Congressional Report, page 19, comes the following quote:

A November survey of 46 Katrina evacuees published by the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado-Boulder concluded that “issues of race and class were central to evacuation experiences.”¹⁷ For many, the evacuation process was complicated by age, mental or physical disability, the need to care for dependents, or material possessions they were trying to take with them.

The Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University also conducted face-to-face interviews with 680 randomly selected adult evacuees residing in Houston.¹⁸ When asked, “Has your experience made you feel like the government cares about people like you, or has it made you feel like the government doesn’t care?” 61 percent reported they felt the government doesn’t care. Additionally, the evacuees suggested an intersection between race and class: 68 percent of respondents thought the federal government would have responded more quickly if more people trapped in the floodwaters were “wealthier and white rather than poorer and black.”

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The US government's bipartisan report (cited above by Tito) said:

• Despite adequate warning 56 hours before landfall, Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin delayed ordering a mandatory evacuation in New Orleans until 19 hours before landfall.
• The failure to order timely mandatory evacuations, Mayor Nagin’s decision to shelter but not evacuate the remaining population, and decisions of individuals led to an incomplete evacuation.
• The incomplete pre-landfall evacuation led to deaths, thousands of dangerous rescues, and horrible conditions for those who remained. ( page 17)

I haven't come to the part which said hundreds of thousands "could not" get out. I'm a slow reader; bear with me. -- Uncle Ed 19:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• A throbbing metropolis of 470,000 before the storm, New Orleans had become at the time of our writing a struggling city that is home to barely 100,000 people — although officials say that figure almost doubles for now during the daytime, when contractors and employees come into the city to work.

So I wonder how "hundreds of thousands" could be stranded in a city whose population is only one hundred thousand. Did the contractors and employess report for work on the day of the hurricane? (I would have checked the weather report over the weekend and stayed away on Monday, August 29th, 2005.) -- Uncle Ed 20:18, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What it is saying is at the time of the report the population is approx 100,000. At the time Katrina struck the population was 470,000....(assuming the figure you quoted is accurate)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, my bad! I had a feeling when glancing rapidly through the lengthy report that 100,000 was kind of low. I should have realized that was a post-Katrina figure. I'm glad you caught that before I did anything as stupid as putting it in the article. :-) -- Uncle Ed 14:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Linda Aldoory, director of the Center for Risk Communication Research at the University of Maryland. “With Katrina, people knew the importance of storm warnings and the need to evacuate, but didn’t have the physical access to do so.”23

Based on quotes in previous sections and the one immediately above, I think that blame can be shared roughly equally among all 4 levels: federal, state, city and individual:

• individuals did not heed warnings, but the delay of the "mandatory evacuation" order probably misled them into thinking they could ride out the storm. For 1,100 people this strategy did not work. They died.
• the city's mayor delayed the "mandatory evacuation" order until 19 hours before the hurricane hit. That's not enough time for people to decide to relocate.
• I don't know what the governor did - I got to read more
• The president might have looked into what mistakes the governor and mayor were about to make, and take steps to override their judgment - to the extent permitted by law and custom.

If I were president, I would have ordered the armed forces to be ready for a last-minute forced evacuation. Swoop in with helicopters or trucks or boats, if the governor and mayor kept delaying the evacuation. Give them a deadline: if you don't decide by X o'clock on such-and-such day, then I'll declare martial law (or something like that).

But Bush would have gotten just as much criticism from the Democratic Party for over-riding local authority as for "going limp" and just responding to requests. I wonder if there was a slightly more proactive thing he could have done, in the face of such delay and disorganization on the part of local authorities. Is there a law that lets the president bypass a state governor if "enough" lives are at stake? If so, I haven't found it through googling. -- Uncle Ed 20:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not appropriate at all for us to come to those conclusions. We do have a Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina article, though. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 23:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In the section "Looting and Violence," the last paragraph reads "In Texas, where more than 300,000 refugees are located, local officials have run 20,000 criminal background checks on the refugees, as well as on the relief workers helping them and people who have opened up their homes. Most of the checks have found little for police to be concerned about. Though, ironically, the murder rate in Houston went up by 75% in the weeks after Katrina. [32]" The citation given refers to an Associated Press article covering evacuee background checks in West Virgina ( http://www.wboy.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=5266), and mentions nothing about crime rates going up anywhere. I think it would be better if the citation referenced the Texas checks specifically mentioned. I'm going to move the location of the current citation to preceed the statement about the Houston murder rate, since it does not touch on that in any way, and place a citation needed tag there. Comments? Foofiticus 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it that the lead of the article has not a word about the social significance of the storm? What was important about Katrina was not just its size and the dollar-value destruction it caused; it was the aftermath, what it revealed about American society (or, at the very least, what people believed it revealed about American society). And nothing — nothing! — about that in the lead? zafiroblue05 | Talk 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

This whole article is in a bad shape at this time. The lead has problems as you have pointed out, the Impact is nearly non-existent, the Aftermath is too detailed...-- Nilfanion ( talk) 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

"What it revealed about American society"? - That'd be POV, depending on who's writing it. Dubc0724 12:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)WC

I read that you are wishing to expand upon the "Impact" heading for the Mississippi Gulf Coast. I was wondering how you feel about secondhand information taken from people living in the area. Let me expand...

I am from Waveland, Mississippi, and one of the things that I noticed was that there was a mere three sentences referring to Katrina and Camille. Now, anyone from that little town will tell you that those 2 storms provide much more information than that. Here's the problem. I didn't firsthand experience either storm - I wasn't alive for Camille, and I am residing in a different area of the country where I was fortunate enough to evade Katrina. However, my immediate family (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings) and friends were all affected by Katrina, and most by Camille, to the point that they are people that lost everything, so they can tell a lot.

29-Aug-2006: I examined NHC post-analysis maps/data and agree: New Orleans got flooded, Mississippi got flattened (also Louisiana peninsulas). Katrina skipped central NOLA ("tourist section") by 40 miles, while hurricane-winds were only 25-miles west & 100-miles east. NOLA got a tropical storm, not hurricane, allowing thousands to evacuate next day (Thank God). Sorry, the news & Wiki failed to see Katrina was 80% Mississippi. -Wikid 77]

One thing I can tell you for sure about the impact from Katrina is that many of the people of Waveland and Bay St. Louis, Mississippi (the two towns are right next to one another) ceased to trust the insurance companies. As a result of so many people filing such large homeowners insurance claims so fast, many companies went bankrupt, and others gave people off-the-wall excuses as to why they could not get a payout. This is not speculatory - one such example is my aunt and uncle whose home was completely destroyed by the storm surge. The insurance company said that a hurricane is defined as a strong wind and powerful thunderstorm, and that since their home was destroyed by the wave of water, they could not cover the damage. See, they had hurricane insurance, but not flood insurance. This problem was widespread, because the majority of the damage in Waveland was caused by the 20ft wall of water, and few people owned flood insurance.

Now obviously, I don't have any official sources to back this up - this is all taken from friends and family. Can this be added to the main page without any other sources? Striker64 23:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I was appalled to find that someone had started a paragraph with the statement that only Hancock and Harrison Counties were significantly affected by Katrina. I have removed this statement and accordingly tried to provide specifics on all three of the coastal counties that gives a fair and balanced viewpoint of the damage. It seemed almost that any references to damage in Jackson County had been deliberately removed. While the destruction of the Hwy 90 St. Louis Bay bridge was mentioned, there was no mention that the Hwy 90 Biloxi Bay bridge was also completely destroyed. And so forth. The extent of the surge was remarkable, and in addition to affecting the entire MS coastline, also destroyed much of Bayou La Batre, AL, and put parts of downtown Mobile, AL under record levels of surge (on the order of 11 feet).

29-Aug-2006: Again, I saw NHC final maps & agree: New Orleans got flooded, Mississippi got flattened (also Louisiana peninsulas). Katrina skipped NOLA ("tourist section") by 40 miles, while hurricane-winds were only 25-miles west & 100-miles east. NOLA got a tropical storm, not hurricane, allowing lucky thousands to evacuate next day. Sorry, news & Wiki failed to understand Katrina was 80% Mississippi, with 47 disaster counties. I am correcting Wiki. -Wikid 77]

One difference in the effects of the surge was that, due to the height of the surge and the strength of the current, structures in coastal areas closer to the eyewall were simply removed; everything, gone. Only slabs and debris were left as far inland as a half mile in areas such as Clermont Harbor and Waveland, and Pass Christian as well. On the eastern end of the state, the surge only leveled houses within about two blocks of the beach, and severely damaged houses for another couple of blocks. However, because most (about 95%) of the residential buildings in Pascagoula received a minimum of 4-5 feet of water inside, all that housing was destroyed, even though the houses remained standing afterwards. They either had to be gutted to the studs, or were total losses as mold quickly set in. So, while the structural damage to Hancock County was the most extensive, Jackson County also suffered an equivalent loss in terms of housing, even though most structures remained standing. Both Hancock and Jackson Counties are prone to extensive flooding. Quite a bit of the coastal area in Harrison County is higher in elevation, so that type of damage was limited in many places to the immediate coast.

However, in terms of economic losses, Hanock County has suffered more than Harrison and Jackson. But this is not a contest. I hope that those who are maintaining this Wiki page are sensitive to the ongoing struggles of all Mississippi residents who were affected by Katrina, and guard in future against hurtful and exclusionary statements as I found, indicating that Jackson County did not receive a major impact from Katrina. Margie 05:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

29-Aug-2006: Agree, flattened coastal Mississippi had 400,000 people, almost like central NOLA (tourist area) which did not get hurricane winds/surge. Sorry Wiki was so unbalanced (severe POV) in not seeing Katrina was 80% Mississippi. I tried to state (at top): "Katrina...largest hurricane to travel across Mississippi" and it was censored as untrue/unfair. The truth is shocking to many. -Wikid 77]

Sure. The problem is that we didn't find information, (or more likely, we didn't know where to look for it.) We still need some hard citations to satisfy the verifiability requirements of the encyclopedia, though. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 06:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

One place to find specifics on the extent of the area inundated by the surge is the FEMA Mississippi Flood Recovery web pages. Be sure to look at the overview map, which gives a quick and clear image of the extent of the surge in MS. Also, in about a week, the NHC will provide an addendum to the Katrina post TC report, addressing the surge, and then specific surge heights and other information can be referenced to that. Margie 06:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That's gone in to too much detail now in my opinion. First compare it to the New Orleans section immediately preceding it, its longer. While the damage in Mississippi may well have been more than in New Orleans, the typical reader from somewhere other than the Gulf Coast would associate Katrina with New Orleans. That comparison isn't all that relevant but it does suggest the detail may be excessive. What is more serious is Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Mississippi comparable in length now with the section on MS impact in this article. In fact I think the best thing to do would be to take out the additions from this article and develop the MS article. Then summarize it back into this article.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 08:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no! There's ANOTHER place in Wiki with the statement "The two counties most affected by the storm were Hancock County and Harrison County." Who is allowing this to occur? This is completely incorrect. What type of people are maintaining this series of Wiki articles? They couldn't possibly be familiar with the Southeastern US. Also to comment on Nilfanion's comment, that is exactly the problem -- people incorrectly associate Katrina with New Orleans. NOLA was inundated because they did not maintain their levee system. Coastline from Grand Isle LA all the way to Bayou La Batre AL was destroyed by the hurricane. So NOLA should not even be the main feature when talking about the hurricane damage. No one seems to recall the horror of Monday afternoon and early evening. Reporters from the major televsion networks were camped out in front of the superdome so they could be filmed against the only apparently newsworthy damage: some fabric from the roof flapping in the wind. They were talking about how NOLA "dodged the bullet." It was true. NOLA hardly had any direct effects from the hurricane. What no one was paying attention to, at that time, and what was so horrific for anyone who had a relative on the LA or MS coastline, was that at that moment the coastline was reeling from being submerged from a surge that was higher and wider than any surge that has ever hit the US. In places like Kiln, people were still trapped in attics because the water had not yet receded, when Peter Jennings was talking about "dodging the bullet" in NOLA.

You know what I recommend for Nilfanion, and any other Wiki poster who thinks that Jackson County did not get hit harder than Harrison, or hard at all, to go through every one of the NOAA aerial images that were taken the day after, of Jackson County (I have, many, many times). Compare them to Hancock and try to see if there's any difference. You won't see much. And then out of a sense of social responsibility I hope to see that statement removed and the appropriate information about all three coastal counties placed in Wiki. I'll be glad to help and provide any links where needed. Margie 14:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily, Nilfanion. Ideally, they should be about the same size, due to the Article size and Summary style guidelines, so perhaps a bit of material here needs to be moved there, but there still should be a somewhat-complete overview of the impact in Mississippi in this article. So, how about we split this article's section into three paragraphs, one for each county receiving primary, direct impacts from the storm? Then, we can go into much more detail into the Effects on Mississippi article. While NOLA is associated with Katrina, Katrina is associated with Louisiana and Mississippi. That means that Gulfport, Biloxi, and the rest of the Mississippi are a bit neglected. Then, there's countering systemic bias and all that... Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 15:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't in a good mood earlier (blame HURDAT). What is certainly true is that the MS effects article is poor, from the comments it seems like a section on both Jackson county and inland counties need to be added to that article. In terms of objective figures like damages, fatalities and population affected the two main impact areas are comparable and so they should receive a roughly equal weighting here. The MS impact in here needs to be developed, I think what I meant is that it would be easier to improve the subarticle and then summarize it back to here again when thats done.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 16:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I was certainly not in the best frame of mind when I was first trying to deal with what I felt was the lack of focus on MS. I do feel better about putting some actions behind my feelings and devoting a couple hours to writing a paragraph of more detailed information, which, regardless of if it stays on the main page or migrates to the MS-specific page, at least does provide some additional info on MS. I also have been emailing some contacts to see if I can find some Mississippians interested in spending some time working on the MS Katrina page.

Want to let you know that I recently talked with my brother and he told me about what he saw when he had to take someone to the airport in NOLA. He said some locations looked like Beruit. And I know it's pretty bad there, and, also, it will be more difficult to rebuild in a big city where there is not the same level of ownership and community that you would find in the smaller cities that occupy the LA and MS coastlines. Not to mention the levees that have been repaired probably aren't all that safe, and there are places along the LA coastline where the levees have not even been rebuilt. There is no simple way to feel about all this. NOLA did get the lion's share of the publicity, and I'll never feel satisfied until there is a historical record that focuses on the direct effects of the hurricane. But don't interpret that as a lack of compassion for the horror of what did happen in NOLA once the levees broke. And I recently learned of at least one family who lived in NOLA who did have wind damage to their home (resulting in the home being a total loss, as rain got in, and everything molded before they could return), so there was some level of hurricane damage there. Margie 01:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There are several places in this article where the numbers contradict each other. For one is the damage estimates. The opening section has a sentence reading "Katrina is estimated to be responsible for over $115 billion (2005 US dollars) in damages, making it the costliest disaster in U.S. history". Yet, later on, the well-known $75 billion dollar damage total from the National Hurricane Center is referenced several times.

I did a search on Google for the $115 billion total and could not find this anywhere! What is the source for this damage total? I believe the damage is greater than $100 billion but is there a source anywhere that states this?

Another contradictory area is in the number of missing. In the "Impact" section, according to ABC's article "Katrina's Missing Still in the Thousands" there were "more than 2000 people still unaccounted for" as of March 3, 2006. This is well-referenced in the "Impact" section (footnote #16). However, later on in the "Death Toll" and "Mississippi" sections, the article states there are 705 missing in Louisiana and 67 missing in Mississippi. This is quite a bit different than the "more than 2000" total referenced earlier. Then to make things more confusing, the table "Deaths by State" lists the number of missing as 1840 - with no date and no reference. Which numbers are correct for the missing: the 705 and 67, the 1840 in the table, or the "over 2000" in the "Impact" section?

The numbers should line up and be consistent throughout the article. --- matt_tx00 10:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing major work at the moment (the Impact section in particular), when that is done most of those discrepancies should be gone. The NHC states $75 billion as their official estimate, but also mentions that that is highly uncertain. Likewise with the ambiguities in the death toll, the lower numbers are likely to be NHC numbers.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 10:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

24-Aug-2006: The numbers seem WAY TOO LOW: perhaps many people can't believe what really happened. The numbers for Mobile, Alabama seem ridiculously low: storm surge only 10 feet? Didn't downtown Mobile flood 18 feet? TRY STORM SURGE: 21 FEET! Mobile's Bay Way bridge section of I-10 was closed due to flooding! Bridges don't close for an extra 10-feet of water. After sunrise, waves were cresting OVER the tops of flooded boat-houses on many boardwalks along the Eastern Shore of Mobile Bay.

Has that been proven? Sure it's probably the highest in dollar amounts, but have the costs of other storms been adjusted for inflation? This may or may not make a difference, but it wasn't cited, so who knows? Dubc0724 12:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to see a source for that, look at the TCR. Its the highest adjusting for inflation.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 12:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By far the costliest even with inflation ($75 billion to Andrew's $39 billion adjusted). — C uivi é nen ^{T| C| @} on Tuesday, 30 May 2006 at 12:33 UTC

In any case, it was revised to $81.2 billion by NOAA. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 05:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've gone through the article adding lots of {{ fact}} notices. I might have gone a bit overboard with it, but better that way than having unsourced statements. I could go through and find sources for some of it (a lot of it I know is true, others will be referenced in the appropriate sub-article), but I don't have the patience given the sheer amount involved.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

All of them are referenced now... Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, for now... (That wasn't as bad as I thought, maybe I missed some though.)-- Nilfanion ( talk) 21:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Citations should be added properly. Merely adding the URL of the article you're referring to is completely useless because many times, URLs eventually are de-linked (or changed). A proper citation should include the author name, article title, publication title, and publication date. You can either enter this information directly in between the 'ref' tags, or use the cite web template, though I am not a big fan of this template -- it's a bit awkward and cumbersome to use, not to mention it's kinda silly to put a 'URL accessed on' date (either the URL goes somewhere or it doesn't; who gives a rat's behind when someone last visited). But at least provide us with the useful information. Dr. Cash 07:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the last time I heard of it, the access date is required because it can be used in conjunction with the Wayback Machine to check previous revisions of pages. Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 07:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 'cite web' template is not bad as it is. My major beef with it right now is the wording they use for 'URL accessed on XXX'. I think this looks a bit sloppy and unprofessional, and it actually does not conform to existing standards for citing internet/website sources, such as the APA Style for Electronic References. I think "Retrieved on XXX" looks much better here. Dr. Cash 21:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Throughout this wretched piece, you have left remarks of the fact that Katrina caused $75 billion.

As of current information, Katrina has given way to almost $225 billion dollars.

Throughout this wretched piece, you have left remarks of the fact that Katrina killed 1,386 people.

As of current information, Katrina has given way to almost 13,860 deaths.

Please revise.

67.86.24.40 19:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Any references to back up what you're saying? Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 23:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. References are definitely needed to back up your figures. This is the first I've seen figures that high in either the death count or dollar/damage estimate. And please don't supply personal blog postings as references. We want actual, valid media references. Dr. Cash 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the 19 June 2006 issue of the Baton Rouge Advocate (Sect. C, p. 1) lists the total number of "Katrina victim" bodies recovered as 1,577 as of June 6th. That's 17 reported by the Orleans Parish coroner, 193 by other parish coroners, 887 by DMORTs, and 480 reported from other states. Also, the "Find Family National Call Center" (now renamed "Family Assistance Center"), took 11,714 calls and found 11,519 of the people being searched for, with "only" 195 still missing. (The great majority of those, probably, being not dead by simply out-of-touch -- perhaps deliberately for some of them. . . .) -- Michael K. Smith 15:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think the most intense hurricane table adds anything to the article, the pertinent info is already incorporated into the prose of the storm history. If we are going to have a meteorological table is in the article it should be the most intense US landfalling table IMO, that tells us something different.-- Nilfanion ( talk) 16:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed the use of the word "refugee" in the article to refer to those displaced by Hurricane Katrina. It should be noted that by definition, refugees are those who have fled across their nation-state boundaries in order to seek refuge in a neighbouring nation-state. Since that didn't happen in this case, in the article the word "refugee" should be replaced with the term "displaced persons". They cannot be refugees within their own country, and to refer to them as refugees diminishes their equality in American citizenship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TanGyal ( talk • contribs) .

Yes, they are Internally displaced persons. Not refugees. At least in international law. -- rxnd ( t | € | c ) 07:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Evacuees" is more correct, and I've replaced it to that. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 07:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There was also considerable resentment (here in Baton Rouge, anyway) by evacuees who were labeled "refugees" in the first days after the hurricane. Those interviewed on the subject said it made them feel "not American". . . . -- Michael K. Smith 15:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently there is a problem in Wikiville. Wikipedia rules clearly state that so long as there are outstanding actionable objections against an article it should not be granted featured status. Giving this article featured status violates this rule. Both myself and poster Avenue clearly articulated problem areas that needed to be dealt with yet both our objections were almost completely ignored. The objections still stand. No one has made any attempt to address them. Wikipedia's reputation is on the line here. -- Jayzel 17:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really not the right place for to discuss this. TimL 18:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Where else should I go? -- Jayzel 18:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. TimL 18:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the belief was that the consensus was against merging information already existing in subarticles into this article. Remember, this article was once over 200kb long, making it the longest article on Wikipedia except for lists. The article is comprehensive without going too far in depth. Such depth is left to subarticles. — Cuivi é nen 21:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is NOT comprehensive as it fails to mention anything about the preparations and response of the state and local governments to the hurricane. The article leaves the impression that the federal U.S. government controls all functions of hurricane response, and that is not correct. FEMA deals only with emergency response and acts as a support system for local governments. As it stands now, the article is biased against the Bush administration. Until these objections are are responded to and rectified I am put a NPOV tag on the article. -- Jayzel 23:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there was a consensus in the FAC discussion, but that's probably better discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. For this page, the relevant issue is that at least three editors (zafiroblue05, Jayzel and me) feel that the article currently does not deal adequately with the controversies over preparation and response. Although space is an issue, I believe there are other things that should be cut back first. The fact that these issues are covered in a subarticle doesn't excuse us from achieving good coverage here, even if it has to be highly summarised. -- Avenue 00:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The issue was that there was no agreement to change it either - some editors said that they felt comfortable with the coverage already in the article, and others didn't. I'm reluctant to make changes of that magnitude (which are really just bringing details to the main article and massively summarizing them) until there is consensus on what exactly to bring. So, how about we agree on what to bring instead of tagging articles? Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 02:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You have removed documented irrefutable information, you have removed the NPOV tag, and this article was falsely given featured status with outstanding and unacknowleged objections. WIKIPEDIA HAS BECOME A JOKE. You can have your little star, but this website will be exposed for the fraud it is. -- Jayzel 03:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting sick of this. Rather than you complaining, why don't you just add in what you want? It's in the subpages already. Most of us are fine with that, but if you aren't, why don't you just add it in and stop complaining. Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While I was one of the objectors in the FAC discussion, I think a lot of my specific concerns have been dealt with, the most important being no mention of any controversies in the lead section. The other two specific concerns I raised have also been dealt with. I am still concerned that the controversies are summarised too briefly, and that there is no mention of problems with charities (e.g. the Red Cross) or of contracting issues (except perhaps tangentially through the lack of trailers mentioned in the Government Response section). Both of these are worth a brief mention, in my view. I have not found a brief summary of these aspects yet in the sub-pages, but I'll look some more. FWIW, I wouldn't oppose FA status for the article any more. -- Avenue 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What effects were being felt by Katrina on the periphery before final landfall (i.e. Cuba, Bahamas)? Apart from the TCR, I can't find anything although the storm's outer bands was clearly affecting those areas. CrazyC83 22:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As a whole this article is impeccable. As a person who lived 3 streets from the 17th street canal and lost everything I would like to give my sincere appreciation for the excellent work done here. I have only found one problem and that is the "supposed" warning given to Bush about the possibility of a breach in the levee system. This was the famous "leaked" video. Since then it has been debunked based on the fact that what was actually said was that the levee could be overtopped. That is completely different especially to people who live here. I see no point of this staying in the way it is currently written since the only purpose it seems to serve is as a possible "gottcha" moment against Bush. The problem is it wasn't a "gottcha" moment because it didn't happen the way this article portrays it.-- firewife 05:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point. While Bush was criticized for the inconsistency (not just by the Telegraph, but by the AP [1]), we should make it clear that the criticism was later debunked. ( This BBC article has details of the AP's later clarification.) Once this is done, it would probably be best to shift this passage to the sub-article on Criticism_of_government_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina. I think there are better uses for the space here, but someone will probably add the mistaken version again if we just delete it. -- Avenue 10:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Avenue: your edit of my edit is perfect!!! That was my first attempt ever to edit on this site, thanks for cleaning it up.-- firewife 00:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you like it. If no one objects, I'll move that passage to the sub-article in a day or so. -- Avenue 01:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I've moved this paragraph to the sub-article as discussed above. -- Avenue 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The NWS Service Assessment released in June 2006 give a new figure of total damage from Katrina. The Executive Summary on page 1 on the report list estimated damages of $81.2 billion, which is $6 billion dollars higher that the $75 billion dollar estimate that the NHC previously gave...maybe we should "up" the damages to this figure on the article page. Here is a link to the report http://www.weather.gov/om/assessments/pdfs/Katrina.pdf Tfelts 2045hrs 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good find. Everything should be adjusted accordingly. -- Hurricanehink ( talk) 21:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Munich Re [2] gives 125 billion US$ economic damages from Katrina.

Sorry, but I think that's unofficial. Because it's not a US government website or a NOAA website, we can't use it. Hurricanehink ( talk) 13:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)