Talk:Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans/Archive 2

This 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

How many dead?

Article fails to clearly state estimates for dead and wounded in New Orleans. Please fix. Tronno 17:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed move of Flood walls levees and their failure to a new article

I find hurricane Katrina articles such as this one get long and rambling because there are have been so many developing stories about different aspects. I have been following the investigation into the flood wall/levee failures which has been gathering pace and will continue for many months. I have been placing developments in the following two sections of this article:

I suggest these may now be worth splitting the levee story out into a seperate article and I have rewritten much of the material and added new information about the investigation from the last two days and placed it at Levee and flood wall failure in New Orleans (following hurricane Katrina).

If there are no objections, I will delete sections 2 and 3 from the present article and replace them with a very short summary and a link to the new page.

It may be that some or all of section 6.1 should also be moved, I will think about the merits of this. Op. Deo 21:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Section 2 and 3 deleted; key parts added to section 1 and Levee Breaches section; link to Levee and flood wall failure in New Orleans (following hurricane Katrina) added. Op. Deo 10:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Separate Reconstruction article?

I think a separate entry on reconstruction efforts would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidweman (talk • contribs) .

Exists. -- Infrogmation 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Criticism by Celebrities

That should probably get its own article to... so I can vote for deletion. --Dystopos 23:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with moving much of such material to another article. I suppose a decent encyclopedic article might be written on the topic, so deletion would be a seperate matter. -- Infrogmation 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, but am wondering about your motives, Dystopos... » K i G O E | talk 22:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The story of individuals and Requium for a City again

I have entered a sort of long piece about what one person went through in the aftermath of the hurricane. This in my opinion is not the best place for this, but there is nowhere in all the articles that I can see where the on-the-ground story of people in the city is presented. Civil response, government response, recovery efforts, all of that, but not the real personal story of the days. I have done this, but if anyone can find a better place, be my guest..--Dumarest 21:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Factual problems

I believe many of the dates are wrong. Didn't Katrina make landfall on Sunday the 29th (the intro says differently)? And wouldn't that make Monday the 30th (the effects section says "Monday August 29")? I think all facts in this article need a very close re-inspection (probably it'll take as much work as rewriting the article). Articles written as current events like this one was are very prone to factual inaccuracy, and it often takes a long time before people notice. — jdorje (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you are correct. The landfall was on August 29, 2005. However, according to my calendar, that was monday morning, not sunday. Sunday was the 28th. Monday was the 30th, and Tuesday was the 31st. I checked a lot of the other dates against references where possible, but it's probably a good idea to go ahead and double-check them. Dr. Cash 07:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it made landfall on Monday morning. — jdorje (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Some of the confusion may be from the fact that this was a HUGE storm, and effects were already being felt Sunday night (a time when the first hurricane force gusts were recorded in the city might be good to add if such info can be found -- as well as the last.) -- Infrogmation 21:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup

The article has been cleaned up, so I removed the cleanup/update tag. The references have been updated and converted to Wikipedia:Footnotes format, and I re-merged the 'civil disturbances' back into this article, after cleanup. Dr. Cash 00:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Just got to the current version of the article - really major cleanup. But, with that cleanup, went the small amount of material on what the event meant to the people on the ground - the 'Stranded Residents Situation', a good bit of which I had added. I see in the various articles in Wiki on the disaster in New Orleans lots of stuff about government, weather, relief, and so on - but this was all I could find relating to the regular people on the ground. It is now gone, unless you moved it to another article. And I think that the day-to-day picture is an important part of the story. On a more personal note, you removed my 'Requiem for New Orleans' image, which I find the most moving icon of that tragedy. --Dumarest 16:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The first two paragraphs of the 'stranded residents situation' subsection were compacted and cleaned up, and moved largely to the beginning of the 'effects' section. The main picture that was in that section was moved up to 'effects' as well. The personal story by the EMT was removed, as the day-to-day account of his personal observations of what happened, is unnecessary, and actually POV, since it's his personal POV. The reference that the article was cited from was also that of a somewhat liberal blog, not really a valid news source.

As far as the New Orleans Requiem image, it was a small-size, scanned image, of low quality. And I couldn't really see where else it would fit into the article anyway. Dr. Cash 04:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand the image question. You may have seen my asking about it earlier, as I could see no article that really fit to place it, and yet it is so poignant a picture of what the loss of the New Orleans we knew meant. I would still like to find an acceptable place.

As to the personal story, by nature the retelling of the events by people suffering those events is POV, there is no way such a piece can be other. And the personal story I feel cannot be removed as POV - as an extreme, any materiel in a Wiki article that t\is taken from an autobiography could suffer the same POV problem. I still think that the story of people suffering the event needs a place to be.

Finally, on the source. Not a blog, a regular publication. Characterization as liberal I can object to as POV, but probably correct. But not a blog, published material. --Dumarest 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right. It is not a blog. A publication, it is, albeit not a mainstream news reference. I still think that the EMT story that is being referenced is really just a play-by-play that, while somewhat interesting, doesn't really add too much in terms of notability to the encyclopedia article. It could be rewritten in more of an encyclopedia format, and referenced.

A complete section on the 'stranded residents situation' is not really all that important, since pretty much every major hurricane has some degree of stranded residents, and people that need to be rescued. That's why I moved some of this to 'effects', which is more immediate, instead of leaving it under 'aftermath'. Though in thinking about it, perhaps something should be said about the long-term population displacement that has forced many residents of New Orleans to relocate (temporarily, for a few months, or permanently) to other cities. Dr. Cash 19:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I can't see where we can claim fair use on that image. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Fair use includes magazine covers, particularly low resolution small versions. --Dumarest 11:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really disputing the "fair use" copyright thing, after all, IANAL. But I still just don't see what it contributes to the article? I mean, it's so small, it's hardly noticeable. It might have a minor "human interest" factor, but I don't think the article is any better, or worse, without it. Dr. Cash 19:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Canal confusion

The Industrial Canal and the 17th Street Canal are quite a ways away from each other.

I don't think the 6 people shot on the Denzinger Bridge had anything to do with any engineers from the Army Corps of Engineers working on the 17th Street Canal breech. Perhaps the breech of the Industrial Canal into the Lower 9th. Also, under possible explanations for sniper fire, more than one person I spoke to when I was doing relief work in my current home town (I'm a New Orleans ex-pat) mentioned that people shot into the air to attract attention. I'm not a reference (unless I am, hey -- I can be a reference!). Perhaps if anyone knows of an article which mentions that it could be included. -- Tall Girl 06:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Lots of the reporting right after the storm was done in improvised fashion by national media unfamiliar with New Orleans geography and with incomplete information. (I most remember watching the tv helicopter footage of what was clearly the Industrial Canal which was being misidentified on the air as the 17th Street Canal, on the other side of town.) Yes, we need to make sure some of the made on-the-fly inaccurate guesses are corrected. -- Infrogmation 16:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Requiem for the city

I entered this image todsy, but if there is a better article for its placement, or a better place in this article rather than the 'Aftermath', please feel free to change. But this image is deep in my soul as to what happened to the city from Katrina, and the feeling of the tragedy is important and so well expressed in this image. --Dumarest 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a nice New Yorker cover, but use of it here would only be under "fair use", and I think the arguement would be a bit questionable, as we have many other free images on the subject and the artist and artwork of the magazine cover are not discussed. -- Infrogmation 21:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

It is, by Wiki standards, fair use - the cover of a magazine. I would happily add to the image page information on the artist, if I could find again that New Yorker issue. As to 'many other images', this one distills the feeling of loss that much of the country felt at the destruction of so much of New Orleans. And by the way, where did you see it? it was removed from the article page in the great cleanup May 1-2. --Dumarest 16:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the image. It is now not on the article. But to me, and others, it is an icon of the effects of the hurricane on New Orleans. I consider putting it, at a better resolution, at the beginning of this topic, as the icon it is. Comments, please. --Dumarest 20:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not fair use. From our fair use page, "The material should not be used in a manner that would likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media; our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product." It also fails the fair use test as it is not an indispensable image, because there's many other free alternatives that are already in use in the article. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair use is arguable. See the discussion under 'Article Cleanup'. As a magazine cover, lower resolution, it should be fair use, in my opinion, but the gods may decide otherwise. As to alternatives, I have seen NOTHING anywhere which so poignantly portrays the sadness of the country at the lost of the city. --Dumarest 21:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a fine work of art. It is also clearly copyrighted. Please try to show at least a modicum of respect for the artist who created it. It might be fair use for, say, an article about the artist who produced it which actually discusses the image. Appropriating the image with absolutely no credit being given to the creator or copyright holder as it were a random free use illustration is IMO entirely inapropriate. In the context it was used, it seems as clear violation of copyright. Please stop putting it back in. -- Infrogmation 14:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Attribution seems to me to be there, it is clearly a New Yorker cover [says so on the image] and I would assume the magazine holds the copyright. If use of the image, with identification of the artist, would be acceptable, I will get that information and add it. --Dumarest 20:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It is still not fair use, as we can avoid using the image completely by using any of the free alternatives available, not to count that the image would be there for purely decorative purposes. Wikipedia's premise behind fair use is avoid it at all costs possible. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 20:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the New Orleans tragedy

I know, I know, this is a simple image, but it so poignantly summarizes what the loss of that city meant to so many of us - this image needs a home on Wiki! --Dumarest 20:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The image is poorly scanned/reproduced, and still contributes little, if anything, to this article. No offense. Please don't take this personally. But the article is much better without it. Dr. Cash 05:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree - it is an essence of what the happenings in New Orleans meant to many. As to poorly scanned, no. That cover was deliberately gray, and out of focus - the presentation itself was part of the messsage that was intended. I would like to hear from others about out difference of opinion. --Dumarest 13:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Seven unsourced statements

A good job of sourcing for the most part, but there are still seven unsourced statements. Please return to the site and fix this.--Desmond Hobson 00:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates over a year later

Can anyone provide updates more than a year later? How much reconstruction has taken place - did everyone return - when was the pumping out of water and the clean-up completed? Also, some of the dates are now confusing, as the death toll update says "as of May 2006", while the other dates lack the year. When reading this on 1 October 2006, it is confusing to keep encountering sentences like "On September 6, E. coli was detected in the water supply." - I presume this means September 6 2005, but this is not entirely clear.

About half the population has returned, and about 2/3rds of the homes and business buildings are still in unusable condition. Repairs on the levees and pumps are still ongoing. -- Infrogmation 18:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

People who did not evacuate

Around 2 to 3 percent of people did not leave before the hurricane struck.

unable to evacuate for a variety of reasons, such as a lack of transportation. (ref: Staff Writer. "New Orleans braces for monster hurricane." CNN. August 29, 2005.)

What kind of people can't find transportation, even to save their lives? Nursing home residents, hospital patients, insane asylum inmates, jail prisoners - that makes sense. Someone has to take them.

But how much money does it cost to take a train or bus out of the city? A week's pay? A day's pay?

I suspect, but cannot prove, that some people hoped they could ride out the storm but then found out their plan was flawed. By the time they realized that the other 97% of New Orleans made the smart move, their options began dwindling as trains and buses become scarcer.

But the article needs to talk about this. At what point did "the last train" leave? The last Greyhound / Trailways bus? And were their no offers from ANY company, charity or ad hoc citizen's group to bring in buses to pick up refugees? (I heard, but haven't seen in Wikipedia, about numerous offers of help which were opposed by local or state government. And there are the ever-present accusations of incompetence or "uncaring" against the Republican White House. But I also heard that Bush offered help that was turned down by the Democratic governor.) --Wing Nut 14:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cut from intro:

many that could not evacuate during the hurricane

How many people could not evacuate? Should the article assume that everyone who remained had no choice? How did the 97% who left get out of the city? Private car? Car pooling with friends and neighbors? Taxi? Train? Bus? Bicycle?

How far would one have to walk, if it came to that? Thirty miles? You could do that in three marches of 3 hours each, with a nice rest in between. Anyone but a cripple can walk 10 miles in 3 hours (3 1/3 mi/hr or 5 km/hr), to save their life.

I'd like to see some references to the debate over how many people could not evacuate. --Wing Nut 15:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For a while I've thought that the 2005 evacuation of New Orleans would be an excellent topic for an article (there actually were two evacuations, the pre and post storm ones).

I've head stories blaming both parties with conspiracies to sabatoge the evacuation. Let's can the politics game without sources, unless we want to go into an accounting of rumors going around (some of which are quite colorful).

Yes, many folks got out by carpooling. I really think the importance of the "mandatory evacuation" order may be somewhat over emphasized; most who left before the storm were either already on the road or finishing packing up their cars by the time Nagin announced it.

Like some other cities such as New York, New Orleans has long had a number of people who've enjoyed the fact that they don't need cars to live here. That became a negative with the evacuation. Some folks went to the train and bus station, only to find they were unfortunately one of the first places to shut down. (It later turns out that another train came in after the station was already announced to be closed, and left largely empty-- through poor communications hardly anyone heard about it until afterwards.) Outgoing airplanes to ANYWHERE were filled up.

Finances probably kept at as many (I'd guess a lot more) form leaving than technical lack of transportion. Lots of folks in poorer neighborhoods had cars (though the cars are often older than the owners, and when running at all trying to get them go into hours of highway driving an unlikely gamble). Evacuating is a serious financial disruption; I know a number of people who evacuated for Ivan in 04 who had to let their power be disconnected for lack of payment and forgo other important things after they came back to town due to the financial expence of the evacuation.

Walking? Sorry, predicting where hurricanes will strike within a the distance of a vigourous hike is not yet within weathercasters power, and most folks who live in hurricane threatened coastal areas know it. One could have spent all day walking only to wind up having gone from somewhere safe into the area that gets a direct hit. In second, post storm, evacuation, a great number of people DID try to walk out-- only to have the Gretna police turn them back with rifles drawn.

Where did you get your "97%" figure for pre-storm evacuation? Everything I've read is in the 80 to 85% range. -- Infrogmation 17:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The 97% seems a little exaggerated being that something like 40,000 people were in the Superdome out of ~470,000 in the city. Walking out of the city, that's pretty ridiculous. Maybe they should have left three days before and picked a direction, camping in tents on the side of the interstate. Right...Mikelj 02:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

On my talk page User:Wing Nut admitted coming up with that figure from the false assumption that everyone who didn't evacuate was in the Superdome. The figure didn't remain in the article long. -- Infrogmation 02:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't pay attention the date. I'm glad that nonsense has been corrected.Mikelj 02:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Move

I propose the page be changed to Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. I prefer the new format, as there was more than one effect. There was the wind effects, the storm surge effects, the preparations, the aftermath, etc. Also, I prefer in rather than on as in indicates it is within the area. In feels more specific than vague. The reason I propose the change is because the articles in Hurricane Isabel effects by region have that format. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't object, so long as all the links are cleaned up to reflect any move. Other opinions? -- Infrogmation 07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge of New Orleans Architecture and the rebuilding process with this article

I object the proposed merger of New Orleans Architecture and the rebuilding process into Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans. If a merge is to be made, I think it would fit better in the Reconstruction of New Orleans article than here. -- Infrogmation 07:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I am being bold and changing the anon editor's merge proposal per the above. -- Infrogmation 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

3.1 Communications failures

Not to toot my own horn, but maybe some mention should be made of the Interdictor Blog in this section, and not just Amateur Radio. Just a thought. Infrogmation, what do you think? Ikilled007 18:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good topic for a real article

Anyone interested in the topic have thoughts on work that can be done to make this look more like a coherent article and less like a cobbled together string of assorted wire service reports? -- Infrogmation 18:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

still not fixed

I am concerned that throughout this article the "at the time" false information is presented, then the "later discovered" true information is revealed. This is very confusing and misleading. Information is also repeated, and there is no order to it at all, chronological or otherwise. These concerns have been up for a year! --Dj245 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

As part of fixing up GA tags per WP:UCGA, I see that this article has a lot of good references late in the article, but the earlier parts (how the hurricane moves through the area, timing, etc.) are lacking references that I think you already likely have in the latter part, just need to be restarted in the earlier part. I don't believe it's enough to review this article's GA, but be aware that you should probably improve these references. --Masem 12:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Evacuation???

In the second paragraph of this article it states that over 1,000,000,0000 were evacuated from the louisiana area in the most successful evacuation ever. Firstly who said it was successful and secondly how many people live in the USa never mind Louisiana? Pinster2001 14;46 september22 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.222.53 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A anon vandal put that in moments before you looked at the article, and it was reverted soon after. Idiots sometimes put ridiculous things into Wikipedia articles, but they are usually reverted promptly, and if they make a habit of it, blocked.

As to the success of the evacuation, studies such as that of the Hurricane Pam exersize predicted that getting 60% of the population would be about as high a figure as could be hoped for. Getting 80 to 90% to leave the threatened area in advance on their own initiative and resources was indeed strikingly high, and the contraflow and traffic management got those driving out much more smoothly than the smaller evacuation from Ivan the year before or Houston's attempt with Rita a month later. Where so much went wrong, this is something often overlooked that went right and no doubt saved many lives. -- Infrogmation 14:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Priority given to the death toll . . . and how many in New Orleans itself?

I am a bit taken aback at just how far down in the article one must read to get to the number of deaths, with property destruction by the hurricane apparently given higher priority than the loss of life.

Further, the article's statement about the number of deaths is as follows:

"As of August 2, 2006, the official number of deceased victims from Louisiana was 1,464."

But the article's title is "Effect of Hurricane Katrina on New Orleans" and not "Effect of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana". As long as this is the agreed-upon subject of the article, should not the number of deaths caused by this hurricane in New Orlean be part of the article? And should not the loss of human life be given the highest priority in reporting the effect of this hurricane?

(Minor point: "Effects of . . ." is more in keeping with standard English usage than the current title, "Effect of . . .".)

[P.S. I now see that user Tronno also asked for the New Orleans death toll to be included in article on Oct. 15, 2005 (see above). But since that request has apparently been overlooked for more than two years, I felt it was better to add this new Talk section rather than just recording my approval to Tronno's suggestion where it seems to have been overlooked for so long.]Daqu (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Move title

I propose this title be moved to Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, per the standard elsewhere in the WPTC. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I never noticed the issue with the name before, but now that I look at it, I think a name change is needed. Juliancolton ^{The storm still blows...} 17:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Semi protect

I have addded a semi-protection request for this article due to IP's vandalizing this article. Gman124 (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Meteorology and atmospheric sciences" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. However, in reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that need to be addressed. I have made minor corrections and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. To keep tabs on your progress so far, either strike through the completed tasks or put checks next to them.

Needs an inline citation:

"A recent study by Tulane University notes that 49% of New Orleans is below sea level, with the more densely populated areas generally on higher ground. The mean (average) elevation of the city is currently between 1 and 2 feet below sea level, with some portions of the city as high as 16 feet (5 m) and others as low as -10 feet (-3 m)." Y

~~"When Katrina made landfall in 2005, the project was between 60-90% complete with a projected date of completion estimated for 2015, nearly 50 years after it first gained authorization."~~ Y
~~"It was also forecast that the storm surge in Lake Pontchartrain would reach 14 to 18 feet (4 - 5 m), with waves reaching seven feet (2 m) above the storm surge."~~ Y
"By the time Hurricane Katrina came ashore early the next morning, approximately one million people had fled the city and its surrounding suburbs by the evening of August 28, while about 20,000 to 25,000 people remained in the city, taking shelter at the Louisiana Superdome, along with 550 National Guard troops." Y
"The Superdome had been used as a shelter in the past, such as during 1998s Hurricane Georges, because it was estimated to be able to withstand winds of up to 200 mph (320 km/h) and water levels of 35 feet (10 m)." Y
"The entire southeastern Louisiana region was declared a disaster area by the Federal Government before Hurricane Katrina made landfall, and FEMA prepositioned 18 disaster medical teams, medical supplies and equipment, urban search and rescue teams along with millions of MREs, liters of water, tarpaulins, and truckloads of ice." Y
~~"Many people chopped their way onto their roofs with hatchets and sledge hammers, which residents had been urged to keep in their attics in case of such events since Hurricane Betsy."~~ Y
~~"New Orleans CBS-affiliate WWL-TV was the only local station to remain on the air during and after the storm."~~ Y
~~"The 24-mile (39 km) long Lake Pontchartrain Causeway escaped unscathed but was only carrying emergency traffic."~~ Y
~~"On September 4, Mayor Nagin speculated that the death toll could rise as high as ten thousand after the clean-up was completed."~~ Y
~~""If we do not have the federal presence in New Orleans tonight at dark, it will no longer be safe to be there, hospital or no hospital", Acadian Ambulance Services C.E.O. Richard Zuschlag told CNN."~~ Y
"The department head told reporters, "I think it was urban myth. Any time you put 25,000 people under one roof, with no running water, no electricity and no information, stories get told." In a case of reported sniper fire, the "sniper" turned out to be the relief valve of a gas tank popping every few minutes." Y
~~"On the same day, Governor Kathleen Blanco announced the arrival of a military presence, stating that they, "[knew] how to shoot and kill and [expected that] they [would].""~~ Y
~~"Several armed attacks on relief helicopters, bus convoys, and police officers were reported..."~~ Y this sentence has been rewritten, and a new source (CNN) has been added. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Dallas Fort Worth area were originally planned to take in evacuees but later refused to take in any more people because of people blaming pre-Katrina evacuees for an extremely rapid increase in crime." Y removed unsourced statement and added citation backing up the previous statement. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
~~"The number of people at the convention center continued to grow over the next three days by some estimates to as many as 20,000 people."~~ Y--Jh12 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"There was a concern that the prolonged flooding would lead to an outbreak of health problems for those who remained in the city. In addition to dehydration and food poisoning, there was also potential for the spread of hepatitis A, cholera, tuberculosis, and typhoid fever, all related to the growing contamination of food and drinking water supplies in the city compounded by the city's characteristic heat and stifling humidity. Survivors could also face long-term health risks due to prolonged exposure to the petrochemical tainted flood waters and mosquito-borne diseases such as yellow fever, malaria and West Nile Virus." Y--Jh12 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
~~"Up to 5,000 people had been triaged and fewer than 200 remained at the medical unit."~~ Y--Jh12 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Other issues:

If possible are there other images that could be added for the background and pre-Katrina sections? It would bring a better balance for the rest of the article.
~~"As of August 2, 2006, the official number of deceased victims from Louisiana was 1,464." If possible, see if there was any more current figures that may have been updated further.~~
1464 remains the official death toll according to the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals; August 2, 2006 was the last deceased report [1] --Jh12 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
In this case, reword it to "Final reports indicate that the official number...". In its current form it seems to leave the impression that the numbers can continue to be updated. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I checked the reference citation, and fixed the sentence. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This isn't required for GA, but would benefit the article. Consider going through the inline citations and using the citation templates at WP:CITET, especially for the inline citations that are only a url. If you need assistance with this, let me know, and I'll be happy to help.

Links converted. Dr. Cash (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This article covers the topic well and if the above issues are addressed, I believe the article can remain a GA. I will leave the article on hold for seven days, but if progress is being made and an extension is needed, one may be given. I will leave messages on the talk pages of the main contributors to the article along with related WikiProjects so that the workload can be shared. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabrielletolliver.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Failed

Since the issues I raised were not addressed, I have regrettably delisted the article according to the requirements of the GA criteria. If the issues are fixed, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. If you have any questions let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the delisting. I am still in the process of finding citations for some of these issues. Please give me a few more days. Thanks! Dr. Cash (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

How is the article coming? I see that some of the statements have been sourced, but one week later much of the work is still not done. I have no problems leaving it on hold for a longer period of time, but how is the progress? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few more citations but it's still a WIP. Not quite sure where the other editors are. Anyway, 14 out of the 18 listed citation requests have been filled. I converted some of the bare references, but 4 still remain. The 1464 figure is the last available official tally for the death toll (see above) --Jh12 (talk) 10:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article is coming along nicely. I'll extend for another week, but if you finish earlier, please contact me on my talk page and I'll re-review it. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I struck through the issues that have been completed. I will be returning to the article on 7/18. Please address the remaining issues, and contact me on my talk page if you need help/have questions about the remaining issues. If sources cannot be found for the remaining two in the "need citations" section, they should be removed and readded once sources are found. Finding a picture or two shouldn't be too difficult, consider using one of the available images at Wikimedia Commons. Good job so far, this article looks a lot better than when I first performed the initial review. Keep it up and see you in a few more days. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Pass

I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Good job on addressing the issues. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would also be beneficial to go through the article and update all of the access dates of the online inline citations and fix any dead links. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Rapes, murders, etc. in Superdome

The article currently says "reports of fights, rape, and filthy living conditions were widespread." and this is certainly correct. Adding that the reports were exaggerrated would require an authoritative cite. This is backed up by [2], in which "Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner, Wanda Pezant ... says over the last weeks, she has counted them. 18 victims, one as young as 13-years-old have now come forward to this sexual assault nurse examiner to say in the confusion of Katrina-they were raped." (and that's just those who have come forward). A doctor there knew of murders [3]. In sum, if there was to be a change I'd have to argue for saying many of the reports were well-founded. Simesa 08:49, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about there have been numerous very credible news sources going back over the evidence and pointing out that the crime (alledged murders and rapes) were completely exaggerated. The New York Times has stated so. The New York Times is cited in the article. [4] --- --Keetoowah 12:39, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Newsmax is well-known for having an ax to grind. By their own words, they have a conservative agenda, and they've been called on the carpet several times for inflammatory articles that were demonstrably false.[5]arimareiji (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

As of the end of September, 4 weeks after the storm, there are still apparently no official reports of sexual assaults at either the Superdome or the Convention Center. [news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4292114.stm] There were only 2 bodies found with gunshot wounds in the area, and one of them was shot elsewhere and brought to the area afterwards. Any newsmax story from September 1st is unreliable. That is when many rumors were flying about. This doctor claims that there were 6 homicides in the two days that he spent inside the Superdome. They only found 4 homicide victims total in the city. [6] Considering the reports that were coming out in early September, it seems quite clear that they were exaggerated. I cannot find another resource besides the wtvy news site that has ANY information about Wanda Pezant reporting ANY of these sexual assaults to the police. As a nurse who purportedly specializes in this area, she would know to report these rapes and sexual assaults, yet apparently she has not done so. WTVY News is in small Dothan, Alabama. If this were a reliable story, it would seem likely to me that other news media would have repeated the news.

PLEASE

Please check and make sure that ALL of the info is correct. I found some that was wrong. Thanks. --Faithful to Wiki, Danielle (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, much of it should be based on the references that were provided, and they may not be right Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you spot some mistakes, please let us know here or correct them directly on the page. Best, --Jh12 (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

machine gun fire

The article says: Charity Hospital, one of several facilities attempting to evacuate patients, was forced to halt the effort after coming under machine gun fire.[49]

someone please remove the reference to machine gun fire. the source cited says nothing about machine guns.

It could be changed to:

Charity Hospital, one of several facilities attempting to evacuate patients, was forced to halt the effort after coming under gun fire.[49] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aklaft (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done —Snigbrook 14:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Everyone act's as if Blacks were the only race effected by Katrina.

So far I've seen two documentry's of katrina survivors.Both of which were heavily edited, and in the Spike Lee documentry there was even talk about the Goverment blowing up the levees, how bad the educational system was pre katrina, and even makes excuses for a small city(in comparison with other american cities) murder rates. If the whites are so racist, why is it that this small city has a higher murder rate than atlanta, and even Los Angeles, and it's black's killing black's for control of the gangs, drugs, turf. Pre katrina the school superintendant pretty much gave the gang's control forcing the f.b.i. to step in.Being native American,(Cherokee), i never hear anyone talk about the conditions on some of our reservaions, How my people were forced off of our land, how we still are exploited for tourism and casino's in which we see very little money. But we have more pride than cry, or kill each other because of material thing's. Being educated and having accepted Jesus as my lord and savior, allows me to be fair and to care for all people. I dont like to see anyone get blamed for thing's that isn't their fault. Whether it be out of anger, hurt, or frustration. But Katrina was a disaster in more way's than one. I know there were people that suffered terribly because of loosing their homes, family members,and possesions. But blaming bush became a popular scape goat for many. Day's before Kqatrina made land fall, Bush warned and pleaded with people to get out. Finally, only after Bush made his plea, did mayor Ray, and the Governor call a news conference urging people to leave. Being a former soldier, i know how long thing's take to get moving once orders come through to have so many personel carriers, helicopters, supply truck's,ect.. In blaming bush, even though it was so easy for the liberals to do, really shows how far the local, state government will go to hide their obvious mis management of the economy. The state, and city of New Orlean's had problems with mis management way before Katrina, and now it's the year 2009 and still have mis management. Many activist stated that New Orleans could break away from the U.S.A, That they could be another Saudi Arabia. B.S. Some claim that oil and gas revenues make them one of the richest states in the union. If this is true, they should have had no problem getting the residents and sick out of N.O. Before the federal Government could ! The public schools and poverty are the reasons used by the angry citezens of New Orleans as a copout excuse for the alarming crime rate. No matter how much money is pumped into education and after school activities can make someone get an education and be a law obiding citizen. Everyone has to be responsible for their own personal conduct. Greed and the lure of easy money is the reason for New Orleans being in the shape it's currently in. Blaming Bush, conspiracy theories of the army corp's of engineers blowing levees is all too easy. But be real and face the REAL problems. I will always remember the images of military transport helicopters attempting to rescue sick and elderly people from the hospitals only to be turned away by automatic gun fire from the gang's. God bless all the victims who lost their lives because of local government failure. After all, this is where the real blame belong's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.7.129 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

- to respond in kind: Bush put in charge many of the people who failed, and there is plenty of evidence of failures by the Army Corps of Engineers. There is no evidence whatsoever that transport helicopters were turned away by 'automatic gunfire from the gangs.' However, there is evidence that people were turned away from shelter at gunpoint by local police. There is also evidence that the actions of these police was due to media hype about gang violence - for instance about 'automatic gunfire from gangs.' Finally, there is evidence that 'gang-violence' media hype came from reports originating with the people Bush put in charge. So you can see, maybe, where that blame comes from.

Long-lasting effects

RT I think residents of New Orleans are still feeling the effects of Hurricane Katrina.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.182.152.160 (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

An unbiased report

You can find it here: http://www.amren.com/ar/2005/10/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lootsucker (talk • contribs) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Violence Estimates

I am really disappointed in the descriptions of violence that are given, in the superdome and the convention center, especially when the footnotes cited state "Reports of anarchy at Superdome overstated". I think this is horribly biased and based on the sensationalist reports of some media outlets during and immidiately after the storm. For this to be considered a "good article" is a stretch. Perhaps we could have a little discussion about this before I go editing other people's work. Let me know what you think because I think this is pretty big problem.Mikelj 02:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. For instance, the reports of sniper fire directed at rescue helicopters referenced in the wiki article links to a New York Times article debunking that rumor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.70.118.88 (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Long-term effects on health / health industry

I am earmarking this for future editing to reflect the profound effects on the health industry of the region -- most doctors left the area immediately following the hurricane and primary care is still being restored. The HHS $100 million primary care access and stabilization grant was awarded 2 years later. These facts, among others, have reshaped healthcare not only in GNO but in the entire state. Zach99998 (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Flood Elevations Map

This item has been removed from the article:

File:Msyelevst.jpg

Elevation map of New Orleans. Cool shades are below the level of Lake Pontchartrain.

This map is grossly inaccurate. Place names are entirely out of place. It shows the 9th Ward in New Orleas East and Arabi is shown where the 9th Ward actually is, among several other inaccuracies. In fact, the only place names that are accurate are Metairie, the "International Airport" (called "Louis Armstrong" for several years now) and the Superdome. Please revise this image and please also attribute the raw data before restoring it to the article. It's a very pretty map but it's inaccurate and unreliable as it is. Economy1 14:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The maker of the image (User:Timvasquez) replied to my e-mail, which asked if there was a corrected version already, or if he'd be interested in making a corrected version: "I don't have the map anymore but I have no problems at all with someone editing the map to make the corrections or removing it." --AySz88 ^-^ 05:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The map does have problems. "Grossly inaccurate" seems a bit of an exageration (perhaps because I saw many much worse in out of town newspapers), but it could certainly be improved; yes most of the problem is the placement of names. New Orleans East is indeed a portion of the Ninth Ward of New Orleans, so that is technically accurate, though not very helpful about the Ward's boundaries. The caption "Arabi" should be moved a bit to the right (it looks like the "bi" are over the correct place) and the "Chalmette" would be better moved to the left. "Terrytown" is over much of Gretna as well; if the map maker can't get correct data on proper boundaries, just changing the caption to "West Bank" might be better. If the caption "Kenner" is to be kept, better to move it above the Airport. The "Audubon Zoological Gardens" rectangle should be recaptioned something like "Audubon Zoo and Park", as the line includes both, not just the zoo. The CBD, Warehouse, and Quarter are a bit off, IMO not too bad for the low resolution, though the CBD should go back to include the Dome, and I'd suggest just extending it to the River, including the Warehouse. The "Marrero" looks okay, and the St. Bernard and Plaquemines Parish captions are accurate. Another point is the bolded roads; most seem to be major highways, but there are also a fair number of bits I have no idea why they should be highlighted. Geographically, -- Infrogmation 06:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where the source of the map or elevation data can be found? --AySz88 ^-^ 23:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what the historical political division lines are, no one would direct you out to Michoud if you asked how how to get to "The Ninth Ward". An extremly important distinction exists that is ignored in this map - just ask anyone from Eastover if they lived in "The Ninth Ward". If you're talking about the post-Katrina flooding, New Orleans East should not be labeled as "The Ninth Ward". Essentially, from the now all-important neighborhood perspective, there is no Ninth Ward but the Lower Ninth Ward. [[7]] And the Ninth Ward is not Arabi. Additionally, the label for "Kenner" does not appear over any part of Kenner. [[8]] The Zoo is not the Park. The CBD is not the Warehouse District. The Dome is in the CBD. This map was drawn/labeled by someone who's never been here. What kind of a map is that? My apologies to any offended by my tone, if any, but I maintain that this map serves no purpose due to the number and size of its inaccuracies. And I didn't even try to understand the unlabled roads. Economy1 15:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are over 100,000 9th Warders who will disagree with you very strongly if you try to tell them "there is no Ninth Ward but the Lower Ninth Ward"! Refering to the lower 9th simply as the 9th Ward is one of the things I know many friends even from other parts of New Orleans have considered among the very worst of the inaccuracies in the reporting of the national big media in the days after the storm. But yes, if we're talking about Katrina, the Lower 9th Ward should be one of the areas designated by the map. It would be great to have a better map. -- Infrogmation 16:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK but someone really needs to explain that to the Census. I'd hate to think we never counted 100,000 people! ;-) Economy1 23:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to work on the map. Beyond the apparent misplacement of place names, it is also in .jpg format when it should be in .png. It would be best if I could work from an original version that didn't have the pixellation, if possible. So what place names should be included on the map? Theshibboleth 23:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The original creator (User:Timvasquez) said that he didn't have the map anymore (see above); however, feel free to contact him and ask him yourself. --AySz88 ^-^ 04:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the reccomendations above, where the map says "9th Ward" I reccomend substituting the caption "Eastern New Orleans", and marking the Lower 9th Ward, whose location is shown on the map in that neighborhood article. Thanks! - Infrogmation 14:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to replace the map with a new one, specifically focused on New Orleans proper and not the entire New Orleans metropolitan area. Many of the concerns mentioned above should be addressed with this new image; please contact me if there is something I missed. The replacement image will be slightly different: based upon tide gauge data in the New Orleans area, mean sea level is roughly 0.4 ft NAVD88. There is, of course, a daily tidal cycle and even an annual cycle that won't be taken into account making a map like this. I also will be using the high resolution (5 meter) LiDAR data for my map; in contrast, I believe Mr. Vasquez used the 30 meter USGS topographic data.W Scott Lincoln 23:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/ERPreport.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110622084053/http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17253/82nd to http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=17253/82nd

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

it says 6

but if you wiki Danzig Bridge it says 2 killed and 4 wounded, I don't know the right one or the source but one is wrong.--Bobthefishmonger (talk) 23:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move to Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana?

Obviously, Katrina's effects in New Orleans were catastrophic, but the storm also affected nearby parishes to a significant degree. Most effects articles are usually at a state or country level. Given that the article discusses nearby parishes already, and deals with the death toll at a state level, I believe the article should be moved. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm gonna ask this again. If no one opposes, I'll move it in a few months. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion of impact on other parishes is pretty limited in this article; Hurricane Katrina effects by region#Louisiana goes into more detail about the effects on other parishes. If you were to move this as suggested, it would need to expand coverage beyond New Orleans to a point where WP:SPLIT might come into play. Or, if you feel the non-New Orleans content deserves a different title, perhaps Effects of Hurricane Katrina in Greater New Orleans. I get the point about other "Effects of ..." articles, but this one seems to me best titled with "New Orleans" since the city is the article's focus. The best parallel I can think of Effects of Hurricane Sandy in New York, but that's confusing in that New York can refer to either the city (which is the article's primary focus) or the state. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Effects of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140303172813/http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?id=2147486137&productid=5470 to http://www.asce.org/Product.aspx?id=2147486137&productid=5470
Added archive https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20051112000150/http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?/mtlogs/nola_Times-Picayune/archives/2005_08.html to http://www.nola.com/newslogs/breakingtp/index.ssf?%2Fmtlogs%2Fnola_Times-Picayune%2Farchives%2F2005_08.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907015049/http:// www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH64451_2005-09-07_18-34-52_YUE762791.html to www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH64451_2005-09-07_18-34-52_YUE762791.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618182444/http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~new_orleans/ to http://www.ce.berkeley.edu/~new_orleans/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Taxodium distichum

It seems that swamp cypress is also very important for coastal defense against storms, ... In the episode regarding Aunt Julia at Atlas of cursed places, it was mentioned this species helped to protect New Orleans during the 1915 hurricane. Since 1915-1916, Lousiana swamp has been degraded (due to hurricane and continued deforestation of the swamp), and hence this protection has been heavily reduced.

Not yet mentioned in article. --Genetics4good (talk) 11:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming home section.

The "coming home" section of this article lacks the encyclopedic and neutral tone that it should have. I Suggest that someone who is more knowledgeable than me in this topic reword it in order to make it better. Also the citations are written in MLA format. Which makes me think that this was perhaps used in argumentative essay, the way it reads points me to that conclusion. That being said, it is not necessarily bad or uninformative, that is why I think someone should just reword it, not just outright delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmaduesALPHADELTA (talk • contribs) 00:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Calls to investigate

In my opinion, the following paragraph needs cleanup. "The failure of the Hurricane Protection Project of New Orleans was the subject of at least two U.S. Senate committee hearings in November 2005.[38] In 2006, the group Levees.org led by Sandy Rosenthal called for 8/29 Commission to investigate both the engineering and decision-making behind the collapse of a flood protection system that should have held against Katrina's storm surge[39] and the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East, which oversees the region's levees, backed the call in 2008.[40]

The first sentence is fine, that there were Senate hearings is relevant. The obvious follow on to the first sentence would be what the Senate hearings yielded. However, what we follow it up with is the fact that some external groups wanted more investigations? So what? If there were an 8/29 Commission then we should detail that, if not, who cares that some group called for one? Bonewah (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Bonewah. You're right. That was a quick fix to address what you first ID'd (the text mentioning just a call for hearings). I noted in the edit that more info needs to be added. I left the 8/29 Commission mention in (with the addition that the call was endorsed by the levee authorities a year or so later) because that's what came up in a very cursory search. I haven't dug deeper yet to see if anything came of it. Unless you've already done the research and determined that nothing came of it, adding a {{Update inline}} tag would probably be appropriate until I or someone else does the research. It looks like that's a problem with this article; a lot of stuff was added as things unfolded, but not all of it has been updated (or reevaluated). —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Ive not dug deeper either and it might be a while before i do so an inline note sounds like the best bet. Bonewah (talk) 15:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I've added one ... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)